About 10-12 miles south of me. Real small town.
It’s been that way for decades in Kennesaw.
Good.
“When seconds matter, the police are minutes away”
Sounds like sage advice to own a gun...
I live in a town of 600 people (it was about 1200 when I was young) and the percentage of homes with guns is almost 100% without a law.
There are differences, some have very full gun cabinets in the den. And a few antlers on the walls. And in the shop is a lot of reloading equipment.
For those fools who stupidly and selfishly spoke out against it, one has to wonder if the thought that any criminal would think if they had signs up at the city limits like the zero tolerance for drugs signs I see?
They would have to take a wild guess who did and who didn't. Then if those same fools began some legal action against it, just have the neighbor put a security sign up in his yard. I would wager my home they never thought of these.
The answer to insanity is NOT more insanity.
This sounds like a setup.
love it
Watch this video and pass it around.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?feature=player_detailpage
This is not a first for Georgia. Kennesaw,
Georgia passed such an ordinance two or three decades ago and it immediately cut down on the crime rate. See John Lott’s book. “More guns, Less crime.”
It should be a requirement that only those who own guns are allowed to vote.
I think the resolution was incorrectly phrased.
“Heads of households” is far too subjective a term and could get mired in technicalities. It is an older expression, and for unrelated reasons has been somewhat compromised, legally.
Instead, a much better term which has good objective standing in the courts: “All adult persons of good character.”
‘Adult’ is defined in the law, as is ‘persons’, men and women, and ‘good character’ is also objective and defined in the law. It means no felony convictions that preclude gun ownership, no mental illness that precludes gun ownership, etc.
Likewise, while this can be done at a town or city level, it would be best done by a county government, because in Common Law, the Sheriff is automatically the leader of the local militia, and can deputize “All adult persons of good character”, as effectively Law Enforcement Officers, to *protect* them from the confiscation of arms.
The people of the County, being “required” to be armed, (which is in no way checked, certified, or prosecuted if they aren’t), gives them the legal status of police. So unless the gun-grabbers outlaw a gun for *police* use, in the *entire* state, they cannot do so to deputized citizens.
Imagine the effect is some DHS wonk went to a Sheriff’s office to demand that his department turn over all its guns to the federals. Why? Because I say so!
The DHS wonk would likely quickly find himself wearing County pajamas and behind bars.
Shades of Switzerland!
Mandatory gun ownership is unconstitutional.
I hope someone DOES challenge this, so that a connection to Obamacare can be made plain in a way that liberals will understand.
Late to the party. Kennesaw GA did it decades ago.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
I remember the Brady Bunch screaming that this would lead to “blood running in the streets!”
It didn’t.
This ordinance is not very difficult to figure out, and a lot of you are over-thinking it. It’s mostly an official “middle finger” to the gun control crowd. The Kennesaw, GA, ordinance is a bit more serious. It’s been on the books since the early 80s, and the results are pretty impressive.
This has already been done before, I’m sure.
Moreover, to assert that one must own a gun is just as wrongheaded, in my opinion, as it is to assert that it should be illegal to own a gun. These are two sides of the same coin.
Even so, this ordinance is probably not intended to be enforced. It looks more like a mere statement than anything else...
So suddenly people in here are ok with government FORCING them to by something?