Town passes ordinance requiring firearms

[bluestateguy]

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/112403/nat_112403032.shtml

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

more

[wuushew]

1. How is this constitutional?

I think this almost bothers me more than the mandatory "No U.N." zones in Utah.

[LastTime2BeFree]

4. What is a "non UN zone"?

Does my homestead qualify since I do not allow any outside influence to control what I do on my property?

[wuushew]

9. One of many pet projects coming from conservative Amerika

VIRGIN, Utah — The Virgin Town Council voted to table an ordinance to adopt a United Nation-free zone until next month’s meeting despite several public comments supporting the ordinance.

Council members heard from Daniel New, father of Michael New, about adopting an ordinance for an U.N.-free zone.

New’s son, Michael, was the only soldier out of 550 in the U.S. Army in Schweinfurt, Germany, to refuse to wear the U.N. cap and insignia to serve under a general from Finland.

New was told to replace the U.S. flag on his right shoulder with the U.N. insignia. New refused after his commanding officer could no show a basis or order for the action.

Disobeying a direct order, New was court-martialed and discharged from the Army for his conduct. Fighting the military court system for more than five years, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled against New last week, leaving New free to bring the issue to a civilian court

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june_2001/virgin_council_no_un_free_zone.htm


http://www.americanpolicy.org/declares_un_free_zone.htm
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/grant_county.htm
http://proliberty.com/observer/20011015.htm
http://www.americansovereign.com/pages/other/unfreezones.htm

[rucky]

46. Backwards-ass country fucks

If they passed a law requiring all the citizens to have teeth, the community chest would be overflowing with fines.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

47. Thanks for a much needed laugh.,

[slackmaster]

58. Hey, I was born in Kansas

Bigotry from the left is just as ugly as bigotry from anywhere else.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

61. I was born in KC, MO. There are small bastions of ignorance in every

state. I don't feel that the poster was slamming the entire state or even towm.

Peace

[slackmaster]

65. Maybe not, but do we need that kind of speech here?

It seems to me any comment like that, even if clearly meant as a joke, could potentially harm the chances that someone on the fence might vote for a Democrat in a major election.

[Iris]

67. Think so?

It seems it's comments like this from the right that send people off to gleefully vote for them probably thinking, "I'm going to get those pinko commies, lesbians, welfare mothers, LIBRULS!, hippies, intellectuals . . . "

[slackmaster]

69. I like to think we needn't lower ourselves to that level

n/t

[leanings]

68. Great

Backwards-ass country fucks
If they passed a law requiring all the citizens to have teeth, the community chest would be overflowing with fines.

Replace "country" with "black" and "requiring all the citizens to have teeth" with "banning fried chicken eating". Is it still OK? Or would that be a bigoted comment? How long would the second version be up on this site? How much ire would it draw? Seems to me both are pretty dismissive of a whole class of people based on ignorant stereotypes. What's the difference? I'm a "country fuck" myself, and I can't say I appreciate the sentiment.

You can't understand why we don't get the white Southern male vote, huh? Hmmm...

[Fescue4u]

5. How is it not?

The state can require you to have smoke detectors. A gun is no different in the sense of it being a safety device.

In any event, it sure is a hella lot more constitutional than these draconian measures to ban handguns (like DC and Chicago)

[Lorien]

23. A SAFTY DEVICE???!!!

WTF? I know TWO families personally whose children DIED because such a "safty device" was not adequately hidden from them. The father of one of the children used a similar "safty device" to commit suicide last year. No way in hell would I permit such a thing in my home! A stun gun stops an intruder, but won't kill your child!

[Terwilliger]

28. you are certifiable...guns as a safety device

:eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

30. tell the police...

that guns aren't issued to them for their safety.....

[sangh0]

56. You're right!

The police officers gun is NOT for the officer's safety. It's for ours.

[slackmaster]

71. Here's a cop who would probably disagree with you

He used his gun to defend himself and his horse against a viscious dog that was deliberately sicced on him.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/news/news_1n25region.html

[DoNotRefill]

76. Sorry, you're completely wrong.

If you were right, it would be legal to shoot fleeing felons in the back, for the protection of society. Tenn. v. Gardner (sp?) put an end to that.

[qanda]

35. You know...

Nevermind! I really don't think it's worth my time.

[DoNotRefill]

10. What they're really doing....

is specifying the equipment required for members of the unorganized militia, per the Militia Act. As such, it's constitutional, just as constitutional as cops being required to have guns.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

20. One Point

The government entity charged with arming the Militia is Congress, not States, nor a county, or municipality, in any State.

[Zomby Woof]

33. there is no constitutional basis

Congress has the sole power to regulate the "militia". Private citizen militias and the "Militia Act" do not owe their existence to the the 2nd amendment or any part of the main body of the document, save for the states having unenumerated rights, which is further down in the Bill of Rights.

There may be a hundred "natural law" arguments for handguns, but no constitutional ones. It is one of the greatest myths since Santa Claus that it is so. The NRA depends on the perpetuation of this myth in order to keep the coffers flowing and their congresspeople purchased. Local laws and state laws - fine. But the NRA keeps a lot of people duped and distorts our history to keep fear and donations thriving. Do some homework, and find out just how many anti-federalists are cited in their historical arguments - the very people who tried defeating the ratification of the document. The 2nd amendment was a half-hearted bribe to appease their demands on having a militia be ready to defend when a standing army cannot (or should not, in some eyes). The anti-federalists were very much opposed to a centralized standing army, and favored citizen militias. But Article 1, Section 8 trumps them in the end. :-)

By all accounts, the 2nd amendment should be of no more alarm than the 3rd. It is only due to the NRA's fearmongering that the 2nd amendment has gotten any headlines in the past 30 years. You can be sure gun manufacturers panicked about falling sales and got the propganda machine rolling. Throw in a few well-chosen teary-eyed myths about the noble American individual with a gun at the ready, and you have a good campaign going. You also have a Big Lie.

The myth of the individual, armed and ready to defend against a tyrannical government, has done more harm than good. Insurrections are unconstitutional, and Congress can authorize a "well-regulated militia" to do away with the paramilitary fantasies of these Kansas wackjobs and other rural fruitcakes, if they decide to be vigilantes and rise up against the government. "Public safety" is far from what they really care about.

To "keep and bear arms" for the "people", means the people of a well-regulated (congressionally-authorized) militia. Period.

That being said, it is a stupid law, even if not unconstitutional.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

42. One Point

There is no 'congressionally authorized' Militia.

There is a Militia, whether congress 'authorizes' it or no.

Every Citizen, you can even say every resident alien, capable of contributing to the common defense is a member of the Militia.

The people are the militia, because they have the right to keep and bear arms. The Militia itself (as an organization) has no right to arms, it is the people that make up the Militia that have that right.

In other words, Since the people have the right to arms they are the Miltia of the United States.

Actually here is another bonus point:

There is one type of insurrection/rebellion that is authorized by the Constitution. That is a successful one. After all if the people Ordained and Established the Constitution, then they most certainly can Ordain and Establish another one if they feel they must.

[sangh0]

59. Another point

The Consitution refers to a "well-organized" militia, not just any run of t he mill militia.

[DoNotRefill]

80. The militia is just about everybody.

If you don't think that we're "well regulated", then please try and carry all of the rules and regulations that we live under at once. Unless it's on microfiche, it can't be done by one person. If that huge body of law doesn't constitute "well regulated", what on earth COULD constitute "well regulated"?

Let's say, just for this argument, that we are NOT well regulated as a people. Whose fault is that?

[Bandit]

75. And just where does the "Well Regulated" part fit in?

The second ammendment is the only one that expressly states "Well Regulated". Who in your (every one has a gun world) will do the regulating?

[DoNotRefill]

77. When was the last time they tried quartering troops...

in civilian houses? Just because the government doesn't try to violate the third amendment doesn't mean that the third amendment is no longer valid.

If the Government never tried to commit unreasonable searches and seizures, would that amendment be invalid too?

The States DO have certain rights pertaining to the militias. Among them is the right to appoint the officers. Barring Federal legislation on the issuing of regulations pertaining to the militia, the regulation of the militia falls to the States. If Congress said "all militia must all be equipped with X" and the States said "all militia must be equipped with Y", which didn't include X, the Federal law would be supreme. Without a Federal law saying what they must have, the State law stands. Even if there's a Federal law that says "all militia must have X", the States could still pass a law stating "all militia must have X + Y", which would be valid.

[sangh0]

57. You are being dishonest

The states don't set the criteria for the militia, Congress does, as per the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? It's what the gun idiots use to justify their mania.

[bluestateguy]

2. I oppose this law

Just as I oppose chubby government bureaucrats with B.O. confiscating guns from people, I also oppose government mandating that people own guns. That is just as fascist as gun confiscation.

[Fescue4u]

6. I do to actually

But requiring folks to have guns IS constitutional, where as grabbing them is not.

[alarimer]

12. How is that possible?

This is a stupid law. Owning guns is a choice. Fucking redneck town.

[GOPFighter]

22. Who has had their guns grabbed?

Oh! Maybe it's felons convicted of violent crimes, or maybe people who have a restraining order against them because they threatened someone.

Some guns should be grabbed. Do you have a problem with that?

[slackmaster]

24. Google these

Both bring up cases where firearms were confiscated from people without due process of law:

California "SKS Sporter" confiscation

"New York City" "gun registration" confiscation

[DoNotRefill]

13. The ordinance....

has exemptions for the legally disabled, poor people, and contientious objectors.

If you don't want to have a gun in your house, you can say that you don't like guns, and they will not force you to have them.

This is largely a "feel-good" measure, like all gun control laws. As such, it's not going to have ANY real effect at all, other than to make the local burglars go someplace else to commit their crimes.

[wuushew]

17. Same problem that religous majorities impose on minorities

Most people in the US "claim" to be Christian and would not object to God in the pledge,money,etc. By forcing the minority to oppose a ban you are rendering the government non-neutral on the issuse which really it shouldn't be. You should choose to own a gun the same way that you choose to practice a religion. The choice should be yours not the choice to opt out because you were forced by the government.

[Fescue4u]

3. Crime in that town will now plumnit

Im don't know that I agree with requiring guns, but it will certainly give any criminal pause!

Kennesaw GA did the same thing about 20 years ago and violent crime became nearly non existant. At the same time, Morton Grove Ill passed a facsist no handguns law and watched their crime continue to rise.

[bluestateguy]

7. I think we all understand gun ownership as a right and a choice

Not a safety requirement that ought to mandated by government. If that is the concern of this town they should fund gun free safety courses for resident.

[slackmaster]

8. I'd wager crime is already very close to zero there

Little towns like that are the safest places in the USA.

[wuushew]

16. Crimes reported in Sumner County Kansas

http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/crime/county/20191.html
http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/arrests/county/20191.html

Crime | Number
Total | 774
Murder | 0
Rape | 5
Robbery | 3
Aggravated Assault | 36
Burglary | 138
Larceny - theft | 551
Motor vehicle thefts | 42
Population | 25,412
Coverage indicator | 92%


http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=4657

[RebelOne]

11. I lived in Kennesaw, GA for a few years and it has the same ordinance

but it has never been enforced.

[RebelOne]

52. Forgot to mention that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in GA

when it comes to break-ins or burgleries.

[sangh0]

60. Another DoNotRefill lie exposed

DNR says Kennesaw's crime rate dropped. He "forgot" to mention it's low crime rate or it's non-enforcement of the law. Imagine that!

[DoNotRefill]

79. Put up or shut up.

Please link to the post where I said Kennesaw's crime rate dropped. Now you're just making shit up and attributing it to me.

[RebelOne]

81. I said that. And it's not shit made up. I lived in Kennesaw.

[boneygrey]

14. Crime

I bet home invasions drop to zero.

[Frances]

19. Statistically speaking

you are safer in a home without a gun than in a home with a gun. I grew up in a part of the country where almost every house had a minimum of one gun. I personally knew at least 9 people who died from guns or else killed themselves or someone else with a gun.

That said, there is no way I would try to convince the townspeople not to have guns. It's a part of who they are.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

21. Got a link

To those statistics?

[Trek234]

26. Err

Are you sure about that? If a stun gun can take down a fully grown 200lb adult I would be afraid to find out what it might do to a 20lb child.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I guess we're not in Kansas, anymore.

*

[LizW]

18. Reeee-diculous. (n/t)

[meisje]

25. We should all be allowed to carry guns

motor voter gun permit! say goodbye to crime

[Tuttle]

27. Hey, I'm all for it - as long as they are REGISTERED!

n/t

Tut-tut

[Superfly]

29. Well,...I think you might be disappointed

because, in Kansas, there is no requirement for firearms registration, as is the same through most of the country with a few notable exceptions (DC, NYC)

[Tuttle]

48. That's my point!

I also support the death penalty - but they MUST use for cases where enormous pain, death and suffering has been intentionally inflicted: such as corporate legal counsel who protect corporations like tobacco and heavy polluters... unless the death penalty is applied in such a fashion, it is in-effectual in reducing enormous pain, death and suffering.

Tut-tut

[vision]

62. then how are they going to ensure the ordinence is followed

Exemption for those that don't want one but requiring everybody to have a gun in the house otherwise, how will they know?

"Okay, town meeting will come to order"

"Sheriff Coultrain, does everybody have a gun?"

"I guess so, we have the sworn statement of Reverand Meek that he doesn't want one and Johnny down by the lake has sworn the same. The rest of the town says they have one but no sworn statements."

"Well, nobody would try to decieve us as we are doing righteous work."

(quotes are mine, attempt at humor)

[arcos]

31. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=237562

[Superfly]

32. Yeah, but this is a more active conversation than the last...

let it stay, mods, pleze

[GarySeven]

34. This is what is killing the Democratic Party in the South

I am more and more convinced that what is killing the Democratic Party in the South is what I call the "urbanization" of the party -- it has become so identified with urban centers that the vast expanse of "red" states are utterly alien to it. In the rural South, where I grew up and live, guns are not seen as implements of violence as they are in the Northern, urban cities. Certainly the murder rate is horrendous here, but there remain legitimate sport and recreational uses for firearms which cannot occur in urban areas. One of the tendencies of the "urbanization" of the party is that it seeks to impose doctrine in areas that it finds difficult to accept; one of the worst examples is the insistance that urban views on guns be followed without dissent. I am a proud liberal, but I feel I have no political voice because the party has abandoned us down here simply because we won't kowtow to the Party line. If you ask me, Zell Miller and Howard Dean are both right about Southern politics -- that's why I have abandoned Kerry for Dean. Go Howie.

[wuushew]

36. So you are saying gun violence does not exist in the South?

n/t

[drewb]

37. LOL...

Yup, that's what he said... :dunce:

[GarySeven]

38. No

"Certainly the murder rate is horrendous here, but there remain legitimate sport and recreational uses for firearms which cannot occur in urban areas."

[cosmicdot]

39. fined $10 ... and, if one still is non-compliant, what happens?

... could someone just pay $10 a month to City Hall to save everyone time and trouble?

let me know when up means up again

[slackmaster]

54. I think you missed a key point in the article

People who conscientiously object to having a gun won't be required to or fined when they don't comply.

[leftist_rebel1569]

40. Okay, i'm curious...

Now don't get me wrong, i'm all for gun control. But, I'm just wondering if this has ever been tried before. I ask this, because I only see 2 solutions to the gun problem:

1) Gun control. You know, pass laws so that so and so can't get a gun without so and so permit and so and so training. This is preferred, because it keeps the guns mostly out of the hands of those that don't need them (like criminals and those of not-so-good mental condition), therefore reducing crime. A tried and proven way to reduce crime.
2) Completely arming the town. This does seem extreme, but it might actually just work. Knowing that everyone else is armed just might make someone think twice about doing something. And, this is being tried

Of course, both have flaws. But, the second one, as far as I know, hasn't been proven as a possible solution. Of course, it can't work on large scales either, only in small town settings does it seem possible at this point. So, has this been tried before

oh, and if you have a good argument to this, i'll listen to it.

[Superfly]

41. I've tested this little theory years ago

and my little microcosm (ie my house) is 100% armed.

Toll, to date:

Attempted break ins - 1
People killed, maimed, etc. - 0

[zatoichi]

44. Everyone might find this interesting...

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=112

It's quite an interesting read -- it examines why Switzerland has not been invaded in a very long time...

[vision]

66. of couse the mountains have nothing to do with it

:eyes:

In Iraq nearly everybody is armed and it was invaded. I don't think that most of the soldiers there are relaxing thier guard, because eveybody is armed. In fact are there not attempts to disarm the populance over there to keep our soldiers safe? I would think that the NRA would be complaigning as it surely reduces crime if everybody is armed ;)

[DivinBreuvage]

43. Small Kansas Town, Huh?

Sure, it's all well and good until John Brown and his sons drop in with a wagon full of old cavalry broadswords. You want to talk about clearing up your problems with vote fraud!

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/brown.htm

Francoise

[lumpy]

45. My preference is a sure-shot-hi-tech

super-curare tip blow gun. Modified flame throwers are ok too.

[NoPasaran]

53. I want my PND!

Personal Nuclear Device

[saigon68]

49. DUPE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=237562

[reprobate]

50. Every home should have at least on chain gun.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. Heck, I don't even own a glue gun.

*

[leanings]

55. Certainly didn't hurt Kennesaw at all.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

[sangh0]

63. More propoganda

Kennesaw has ALWAYS had low crime rates, even before the ordinance passed, and the ordinance hasn't been enforced, so it gets no credit for the low crime rate. Also, very few of the crimes that do occur are the sort that require a gun to defend against.

[leanings]

64. Did you look at the link?

One would certainly expect an increase in the number of burglaries and violent crimes when the population QUADRUPLED, wouldn't you think?

I'm not saying it's a panacea or that every locality in the land should pass a similar law. But according to pro-control logic, if Kennesaw does have a higher level of firearms ownership than the average community it should be a hotbed of vigilantism and Wild West style street shootouts, right?

[sangh0]

70. Yes, I did

One would certainly expect an increase in the number of burglaries and violent crimes when the population QUADRUPLED, wouldn't you think?

No, increases in the density of the population often leads to a decrease in crime.

[leanings]

72. I'm unfamiliar with that phenomenon.

Do you have a link explaining that effect?

[Superfly]

74. I think he's trying to say....

if you have 100,000 people in a given area and there are 10 crimes, that gives a crime rate of 10/100,000

Now, if the population increases to 150,000, that gives a crime rate of 6.7 per 100,000 (which looks like a decrease in crime)

Too bad that never happens, becaue the solution to all our crime problems would be to just increase the population.

[slackmaster]

73. Got a cite or three to support that?

In my experience the most crowded places seem to have the worst crime.

[Stuckinthebush]

78. This is idiotic

While I have nothing against people keeping and bearing arms reasonably, forcing them to do so is clearly unlawful. This thing wouldn't be upheld by the lowest court in the State.

A gun is a weapon. You can't force people to have weapons. An above conversation about a gun being a safety device is interesting in an academic sense, but would fall on its face in court.

This kind of stupid law gives arms amendment proponents a bad name. There are many valid reasons for supporting the amendment, but forcing a person to keep and bear arms is ludicrous.