Tiny US city faces off against national gun control group over mandatory gun ownership

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Tiny US city faces off against national gun control group over mandatory gun ownership
By Kate Brumback, The Associated Press July 12, 2013 1:05 PM

ATLANTA - A tiny U.S. city and a national gun control group are facing off in a legal battle over a local ordinance requiring gun ownership, with the constitutionality of the law and broader messages about gun rights taking centre stage.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in May filed a federal lawsuit against Nelson, a city of roughly 1,300 residents in Georgia state, saying a recently adopted ordinance requiring heads of household to own a gun and ammunition is unconstitutional.

"We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it's passed," lawyer Jonathan Lowy of the Washington-based Brady Center said in a recent interview. "But it's also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws."

The Nelson City Council adopted the Family Protection Ordinance on April 1. The measure requires every head of household to own a gun and ammunition to "provide for the emergency management of the city" and to "provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." The ordinance exempts convicted felons, those who can't afford a gun and those who suffer from certain physical or mental disabilities, as well as anyone who conscientiously objects to owning guns because of their beliefs or religious doctrine.






Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Tiny+city+faces+against+national+control+group+over+mandatory/8652173/story.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. So, there's an exemption for conscientious objectors.

Unless there's a cost or burdensome paperwork required to object, I don't see a successful suit here.

I didn't read anything about the grounds upon which this is supposed to be unconstitutional.

[CreekDog]

7. the "Family Protection Ordinance" would actually be more protective if...

it encouraged families to *not* own nor keep any guns within their family's household.

instead it doesn't just encourage, it *requires* people to keep guns and those guns overall, make them less safe, because the chances of the household gun being used against a household member are far higher than it being used to stop a crime or on an intruder.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Now that would be smart, but if it was as voluntary as this ordinance is, it wouldn't mean too much.

I would do what you suggest and require ownership of protective measures with a ONE TIME inspection of use of such devices.

Others have suggested random home searches of gun owners to be sure the guns are locked up, and that's not cool.

[CreekDog]

10. smarter to simply not own a gun

the way everyone envisions a gun making you safer will prevent hasty use of it.

and if you have that much time, there are other solutions that are superior.

regardless of the laws, on average, one is less safe owning guns and is more mislead thinking they are safer owning guns.

[Lee-Lee]

20. Not really

Your statement is way overly generalized.

And one can have a gun ready to use in seconds and still be perfectly safe.

[Lee-Lee]

9. FWIW

The studies that have shown that are pretty much junk science.

[CreekDog]

12. no. these are statistics, not studies

also, anyone can throw the term "junk science" around, global climate change deniers do it all the time.

[Lee-Lee]

14. OK Junk statistics

produced by junk science.

Garbage in= garbage out.

If you look at the studies most people cite, they used samples to develop the statistics that are really not representative of the nation as a whole.

Most people citing statistics like you are base them on the studies done by Arthur Kellerman, and his studies were very, very fraught with issues.

I wont lay them all out here, but I will point out one of the major flaws- he only studied 3 counties, ones that contained Memphis, Seattle, and Cleveland.

One can not make any rational argument that the demographics, crime data, poverty rate, or anything else for those 3 large urban areas is representative of the USA as a whole. So try to take data for only those 3 counties and claim it represents the nation as a whole, for any kind of study, is simply nonsense.

Had his study made some attempt to also include an equal balance of urban, suburban and rural populations and them produced results, you might have a study representative of the nation and therefore a result worth citing.

But sadly most Democrats hear numbers like that that reinforce what they want to believe and cite them without ever looking at the study to see if it is valid. I still hear the garbage "a gun is 43 times more likely" crap that came form Kellermans first study, and even he was forced to admit that was wrong and retract it, even with his skewed data set. But people still cite that number that even the studies author admitted it was bogus.

As Democrats we should be better than that and base our polices on sound data.

[Android3.14]

25. Sorry kid, but you have the obvious bias

Someone with little competence or a pathological bias will look at the work of one person and generalize it for an entire realm of research.
The evidence is overwhelming that houses with guns in them are more likely to experience accidents with guns. The same is true for houses with pools having a greater chance of drownings.
I support an individual's right to accept those risks, but only numbnut pretends the opposite is true.

[upaloopa]

2. Stupid law exemts you if you're not a gun nut.

The gun nuts already have guns so why have the law?
Just more gun nuttery on top of gun nuttery..

[Politicalboi]

3. I would tell them to shove their guns

Up their asses as far as possible, and pull the trigger. This is insanity 101.

The ordinance exempts convicted felons, those who can't afford a gun and those who suffer from certain physical or mental disabilities, as well as anyone who conscientiously objects to owning guns because of their beliefs or religious doctrine.

In other words, there is NO law to own a gun if you don't WANT too.

Better to write stupid laws and look like they're doing something than write a law we really need.

[Evasporque]

4. Let the eagles SOOOAAAARRR!

FREEEDDDUUUHHHMMMM!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. I still have the mp3 of Ashcroft hurting my ears with that horrible song

I think I actually ripped it from some news video. It's like rubbernecking at the scene of a car accident. It's really terrible stuff, but you cannot help looking, or listening in this case.

[Mike Daniels]

5. The exemptions alone make the ordinance pointless

Either plead that other expenses preclude you from purchasing a gun or that your beliefs keep you from owning a gun and you're off the hook.

What's the point in this law when anyone can exempt themselves anyway?

[penultimate]

21. Stupid political statement. Completely useless and probably wastes some money/time/effort

that could have been directed elsewhere.

[Lee-Lee]

6. I am pro-gun, but this law is ridiculous.

What is the point?

[maxsolomon]

16. Spite

And to cater to American gun culture's perception of persecution.

I'd wager that they really believe they're standing up for the 2nd Amendment.

The citizens are not going to be happy when they get the legal bill.

[locks]

11. Georgia is not the only state boasting a town requiring its residents to own a gun

In Colorado, Nucla, a town of 700 people, was so inspired by the people of Nelson, GA, they passed the same ordinance, requiring every homeowner to own a gun and of course ammo. While acknowledging that some people in Colorado might consider the town's residents to be "a bunch of banjo-playing, glow-in-the-dark idiots," Mayor Craig told a local TV station that the ordinance was meant to make the town safer. The Denver Post editorialized: "Perhaps if the town existed on some archaic frontier where it regularly found itself under siege from lawless gangs you could actually make a case for mandatory collective defense. But of course Nucla is the very opposite of a beleaguered outpost."

Before this year Nucla was famous for holding the Top Dog World Championship Prairie Dog Shoot where contestants from 11 states competed to blast the little varmints using military-type guns that killed about 4000 a day. Unfortunately, most of the prairie dogs died off from blasting and plague just as the state was trying to re-introduce endangered black-footed ferrets whose favorite meal happens to be prairie dogs. That, and sometimes more protesters and media came than "hunters", so Nucla let the Top Dog event die too.

We can only hope that Nucla and Nelson will join in secession proceedings along with the three counties in northern Colorado and most of Texas.

[tanyev]

13. Mandatory gun ownership--what could possibly go wrong?

[RebelOne]

15. The gun law has been in effect in Kennesaw, GA, since 1982.

I lived there for a few years after I moved to Georgia in 1989. I now live in the neighboring town of Woodstock. But because of the gun law, Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in the state, so it was OK with me.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

[maxsolomon]

17. correlation is not causation

nt

[RebelOne]

24. What is that supposed to mean? n/t

[maxsolomon]

26. It means that

a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.

Go ahead and believe that the armed populace is why the scary home invaders leave that town alone, but the declining crime rate is not proof that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[7962]

19. Yes, the population has doubled since the law took effect,

and the crime rate dropped over 70%. Murders are almost unheard of.

[LanternWaste]

27. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

"But because of the gun law, Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in the state..."

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

[NickB79]

22. Both sides are idiots, IMO

The city wrote a law with so many exemptions that it's meaningless.

The Brady Center is suing without a legal leg to stand on because the city covered their legal asses by putting in so many exemptions.

It's a wash of stupidity.

[complain jane]

23. An ordinance forcing people to own a gun? WTF?

Although it sounds like it's pretty easy to get around it so what's the point of having something so stupid?