Mandatory Gun Ownership

[Ombudsman]

So a few wing nuts in Ga, have gone so far as to take the amendment they claim gives them freedom and turn it on it's head by creating a law that couldn't be more anti-freedom.

NELSON, GA. — A north Georgia city is set to vote on an ordinance that would make gun ownership mandatory.

City council members in Nelson are set to vote on the Family Protection Ordinance at their meeting Monday evening.

The city of about 1,300 located about 50 miles north of Atlanta has gotten a lot of attention in the media since the ordinance was proposed.

But the proposed ordinance includes a lot of exemptions, including people with a physical or mental disability, convicted felons and people who conscientiously oppose gun ownership.

City Councilman Jackie Jarrett says most people in town already own guns, and the ordinance is primarily meant as a statement in favor of gun rights and ownership.

The proposed ordinance is similar to a law that passed in Kennesaw in 1982.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article ... -mandatory

But dumb ass, the statement you're making is that you're so in love with your gun that you demand everyone else be equally obsessed.

[neoplacebo]

I think there was a proposal like this back in the early 80's in another GA town; Newnan I believe it was. I don't recall the particular type of wingnuttery surrounding it, though.

[O Really]

It was (is) Kennesaw, which still has the unenforced, unenforceable symbolic law on its books. It's a strange world these people live in to think it's OK to make a citizen buy and keep a gun, but not to make them buy and keep health insurance.

[rstrong]

It was (is) Kennesaw, which still has the unenforced, unenforceable symbolic law on its books. It's a strange world these people live in to think it's OK to make a citizen buy and keep a gun, but not to make them buy and keep health insurance.

In their defense, they only oppose making people buy and keep health insurance when a Democrat suggests it. It was a common Republican policy, only becoming commie marxist socialism when Obama adopted it.

As for Kennesaw, it's an article of faith that since their gun law was passed there hasn't been a single murder there (not at all true) and that crime has dropped (true, just like the national average.)

[O Really]

It was (is) Kennesaw, which still has the unenforced, unenforceable symbolic law on its books. It's a strange world these people live in to think it's OK to make a citizen buy and keep a gun, but not to make them buy and keep health insurance.

In their defense, they only oppose making people buy and keep health insurance when a Democrat suggests it. It was a common Republican policy, only becoming commie marxist socialism when Obama adopted it.

As for Kennesaw, it's an article of faith that since their gun law was passed there hasn't been a single murder there (not at all true) and that crime has dropped (true, just like the national average.)

Yes, Kennesaw has a lower rate than some, and a higher rate than some compared to similar communities in Georgia, but it's kinda hard to claim the gun mandate did much since they don't even know or have any way of knowing if anybody is actually complying. No gun counts, no gun registration, no arrests, no nothing. Ironically, in order to enforce such a law, they'd have to implement mandatory registration and/or home inspection. Idiots all.

[neoplacebo]

Yeah, you're right....Kennesaw. I was thinking it was Newnan for some reason. It would seem, then, that this "must be armed" statute has been prevalent for quite a while; I first heard of it in probably 79 or 80. Hell, I venture to say the Kennesaw folks were probably 80 or 90 per cent gun owners anyway.

[O Really]

It was 82. It would be overturned if ever challenged, but it can't be challenged unless some effort is made to enforce it, and they have no way of doing that. As such, it has no more meaning than any other motto or slogan, including the official one of Georgia..
"Wisdom, Justice, Moderation." http://www.usafactbook.org/motto/georgia/

[neoplacebo]

It was 82. It would be overturned if ever challenged, but it can't be challenged unless some effort is made to enforce it, and they have no way of doing that. As such, it has no more meaning than any other motto or slogan, including the official one of Georgia..
"Wisdom, Justice, Moderation." http://www.usafactbook.org/motto/georgia/

Ah, so the must have a gun statute falls in with the no spitting on the sidewalk or no cussing on the highway statute. I'm not sure, but I venture to say that heterosexual sex is illegal in some states unless you're married to the other heterosexual involved in the transgression.

[O Really]

Ah, so the must have a gun statute falls in with the no spitting on the sidewalk or no cussing on the highway statute. .

Lower on the scale, actually. Both of those have from time to time been enforced and at least the spitting on the sidewalk one originally had some pretty sound reasoning to it. TB prevention.

[rstrong]

Ah, so the must have a gun statute falls in with the no spitting on the sidewalk or no cussing on the highway statute.

One of my favorites:

Minors in Kansas City, Missouri, are not allowed to purchase cap pistols; they may buy shotguns freely, however.

[O Really]

The Kennesaw law, ridiculous as it is, does have some real problems.

Kennesaw City Ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

1. The ordinance would appear to be conscripting citizens to work on behalf of city, without compensation.

2. "head of household" is undefined. Would this use the tax definition? And if not, then what?

3. It appears the ammunition must be maintained "together" with the firearm - does this mean it should be loaded, or can it just be beside it?

4. Does a "head of household" have to show medical cause to show they are prohibited from using a firearm? Will they have to put the disabled sticker on their window with a "gun-free" logo?

5. "Paupers"? Seriously?

6. There is no requirement to actually learn to shoot, or to take any gun safety class.

So...the city says you have to have a gun, doesn't say you have to have training, somebody shoots themselves or a family member... who ya' gonna sue?

[O Really]

I'm wondering what condition would qualify. You only need one partially working hand to fire a revolver, and we know a lot of people with less than half a brain own guns, so what could get one out of this requirement? Advanced Lou Gehrig's disease? Parkinson's wouldn't do it. Nothing in the law says you have to be accurate. The condition formerly known as "mental retardation" wouldn't do it. That was apparently a pre-requisite to election to the city council that passed this turkey.