Covered at Reason 24/7: Georgia Town Could Make Not Owning a Gun Illegal

Since the Newtown tragedy gun control has been dominating much of the news, with many legislators speaking out in favor of making it more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. In one Georgia town a local councilman has introduced an ordinance that, if passed, would make it illegal for residents NOT to own a gun. 

From WSBTV:

NELSON, Ga. — Every homeowner in a local town could soon have to own a gun or break the law. It's a controversial new plan for the city of Nelson.


Leaders told Channel 2's John Bachman the reason they need the law is because the city straddles Cherokee county to the south and Pickens County to the north. 

That, they said, can lead to slower response times.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Calitaxian||

    How ever much I would love to see this law just to stick it to the progs, I cant see how it would be legal to force someone to pruchase something.... like being forced to buy healthcare.

  • Professional Target||

    Remember the Militia Acts? Hue and Cry? There's Common Law history for free men being required to own weapons.

  • Brett L||

    But not at the municipality level.

  • Professional Target||

    Hmm. I've never studied the issue on the local (city, county) level. Nearest thing I can think of off hand is I was living in Kennesaw, GA in 1982 when they passed a law much like this. I believe that law is still in effect.

    What was most interesting to me then was the objections from politicians and newspapers outside Kennesaw, from places like Marietta, Smyrna and Atlanta.

    From my point of view, it's as reasonable as requiring other safety equipment like smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

  • Brett L||

    I believe that Kennesaw's is acknowledged to be unconstitutional, however, since they've never enforced it, no one has any standing to challenge it.

  • SIV||

    (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.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    How would it be illegal?

  • Calitaxian||

    For the same reasons the government wouldnt be able to make you buy an iMac.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Which reasons are those?

  • Calitaxian||

    Ok smart guy explain to me how anybody can force me to use my money, outside of the feds demonic tax loophole.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    They win a vote of 50% + 1 to do so or the representatives do it on their behalf.

  • $park¥||

    DEMOCRACY!

  • Calitaxian||

    You could make that argument to require me to have a gun, aslong as you are providing it, but not to force me to spend my money.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You could make an argument that that is the better scenario. Can you make an argument that there is something in the federal or Georgia constitution that prevents a law that requires you to spend money?

  • ||

    The better question to ask is what gives them the authority to make you buy something in the first place, and for what reasons? In short, how would it be LEGAL?

  • Calitaxian||

    Yes but I wanted to go for the broader 'my money fuck off' question.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    A referendum or legislative that doesn't violate any federal or state constitutional provisions.

  • Calitaxian||

    My money fuck off

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's an admirable, if not relevant, position.

    Tell me why, other than your philosophy, such a law would be invalid.

  • Randian||

    13th Amendment? :)

  • Professional Target||

    13th Amendment? :)

    I agree, but then the draft is unconstitutional too.

  • $park¥||

    That's an admirable, if not relevant, position.

    Tell me why, other than your philosophy, such a law would be invalid.

    For the same reason that they can't make owning guns illegal?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The 2d prevents outlawing gun ownership. The 2d doesn't prevent requiring gun ownership.

  • $park¥||

    Oh well, guess you win. As a side note, I also couldn't find anything that would prevent requiring:

    manicures
    crew-cut haircuts
    health insurance
    life insurance
    in-ground pools
    wearing a necktie
    wearing a skirt
    morning exercises
    smoking
    drinking
    dancing

    I look forward to the great democracy making laws requiring any or all of these things.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    As a philosophical matter, I think such laws would be illegitimate.

    As a practical matter, I'm not sure what -- other than lack of support -- would prevent them.

  • $park¥||

    We're only as free as the 50%+1 allow us to be. Ahhh, I love freedom.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Do you disagree that, with the exception of a handful of Constitutional exceptions, that's pretty much the situation right now?

  • $park¥||

    Sure, I'm all in the "Law is the law" camp. I'm just surprised to find other people in it. Generally that phrase is used to mock and ridicule people here.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm not in the "law is the law" camp, but I recognize that I'm operating in a country where most are.

    If I were emperor, this would be a much freer country than the one people have voted for themselves.

  • ||

    As a practical matter, I'm not sure what -- other than lack of support -- would prevent them.

    At the federal level, that's easy. 10A.

    Nowhere does the Constitution give the feds such a right.

    Once you get to the state level, it's bags of worms all the way down.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Oh, definitely, but this isn't at the federal level. The feds theoretically have enumerated powers. The states don't. They can, theoretically, do whatever the hell they choose, subject to constitutional limitations.

  • ||

    It is an interesting question. 9A ensures us that we have rights beyond those stated. I would surly agree that the right for you to spend your money only on that which you chose would be among them. 10A gives all but the enumerated powers to the states OR THE PEOPLE.

    Can a State, through its Constitution claim all those powers not enumerated and leave none for the people?

  • ||

    surely

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't know.

    It's hard to imagine that the 10th makes, say, building codes unconstitutional just because they can definitely make you spend money on things other than which you choose.

    I tend to believe that the 10th was protection for the people and the state against the federal government rather than as against each other.

    It is interesting, though.

  • Calitaxian||

    Im gonna be honest this is going on far longer then I forsaw and I really dont feel like looking into the state or local constitution to back up my claims. Fair enough?

    P.S some of us have to pretened to work in order to collect our government pay.

  • ||

    It's a tax.

  • Calitaxian||

    I doubt the local gov has the same taxing powers as the feds... i could be wrong though.

  • Generic Stranger||

    They have more, actually.

  • Golden Boy||

    I'd love it if all these sissified hippie liberals were forced to hold a gun. These people have such an irrational fear of guns. Remeber when men were men?

  • ||

    Remeber when men were men?

    Yes, and then you showed up. Thanks for pussifying the thread.

  • ||

    No.

  • ||

    You can read, can't you?

  • ||

    Odd, 2 of the posts I responded to were removed. But the OP is still there.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What if you're an ex-felon who isn't allowed to own a gun? Are you forced to leave town?

  • Brett L||

    It requires gun ownership, but allows several outs, like if you're not physically or mentally able to handle a gun, or if you're a felon or have religious objections.

    Only sex offenders can be forced to leave town on the whim of the city council.

  • Brett L||

    Sorry, the quote is from the actual article after clicking through the 24/7 "article".

  • ||

    You buy a gun on the black market since you can't pass the background checks, then when they check to see that you have a gun (since you are a resident), they arrest you for owning an illegally purchased gun.

  • Virginian||

    Fun fact: the USSC has held that requiring felons to register their guns is a violation of the 5th Amendment. I believe it's Haynes v. United States.

  • robc||

    Kennesaw GA has had the same law for 30 years.

    It exclused felons, conscientious objectors, those too poor to buy a gun, and anyone who doesnt want to follow the law, as it isnt enforced.

  • ||

    PENALTAX!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Didn't Kennesaw already do this?

  • wareagle||

    yes

  • JD the elder||

    Yes. Hooray for fact-checking, huh?

  • robc||

    Only 30 years ago though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Calitaxian||

    It didnt say they had to buy or own those things just to have them, they could be supplied by the state.

  • Calitaxian||

    Notice how it makes a distinction between the two groups men required to have and men who own. It wouldnt make any since to seperate them if all were required to own.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's true. However, at that time, Revolutionary War militia had a tradition of being self-equipped. They also didn't receive pay. Some states did supply their milita with equipment, like Pennsylvania. However, at that time, most states weren't as wealthy as Pennsylvania and required the militiamen to purchase their own equipment.

  • GILMORE||

    Those were the days.

    The knapsack requirement may be a tad excessive

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The knapsack requirement may be a tad excessive

    Are you saying my G.I. Joe bookbag isn't milspec?

  • sloopyinca||

    It's a shame they didn't specify it as "a modern military-grade weapon." That would mean I'd have to keep a full-auto M-16A2 or M-4 Carbine at home. And I could live with that.

  • Randian||

    Full auto sucks though.

  • Virginian||

    For actual fighting yes. There's a reason us gun nuts call it the fun switch.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fucking selector switches, how do they work?

  • 21044||

    The switches didn't on the M14s we had. :-(

  • GILMORE||

    I fear only flash-suppressors or pistol grips... the gun itself? meh.

  • Calitaxian||

    Your forgeting the dreaded bayonet mount.

  • 21044||

    OMG, not a bayonet mount!

    How come the bayonet mount on my Swedish Mauser doesn't scare anyone. Though, greater than 60 years old, if were scoped it should scare someone. I was happily surprised on just how accurate it is even using open sights.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Schiavelli, who lives with his mother, was charged with acting “in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others.”

    So if the guy's laughter was annoying but the neighbor's complaint was also annoying, they both get tickets?

    Also, it appears that tall people and those who walk too slowly could be charged.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fatties beware. Also, people that double-park, men who wear speedos, Jehovah's Witnesses, construction workers, high school guidance counselors and fags.

  • $park¥||

    Makes sense to me. After all, it is the law.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    At least you could go after that one as void for vagueness.

  • Zeb||

    May be a few first amendment problems as well.

  • $park¥||

    Pshaw. If there were first amendment problems, a "disturbing the peace" law/regulation could never have been made in the first place.

  • ||

    Well, not legally, anyhow.

  • $park¥||

    There haven't been any challenges to the legality of the disturbing the peace law. Have there?

  • Calitaxian||

    Look any requirment by any gov to force a person to purhcase anything... including guns is an assualt on liberty, and only allows the progs a route to force there mandatory items on people.

    You can't make exceptions for the policies you happen to like if they violate the same prinicples as the policies you dont like.

    Otherwise your no better then the REDS and BLUES.

  • $park¥||

    But, but, libertarians LIKE guns so it's perfectly libertarian to force people, in a very libertarian manner, to buy guns.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm pretty sure no one is saying it is libertarian to force people to buy guns.

  • Calitaxian||

    I was honestly afriad the first reply would be to my use of the wrong "there"

    Thanks for reaffirming my faith in humanity sparky.

  • $park¥||

    You mean the use of the wrong "than?"

  • Calitaxian||

    Well if i didnt have to suffer through the indocternation camps that are the Cali public schools I may have paid attention.

  • $park¥||

    Indoctrination? Or are you a docter now?

  • Calitaxian||

    In my defence I refer you to my previous commment.

  • $park¥||

    OK, I'll stop. This could go on all day.

  • sloopyinca||

    It shore could.

  • $park¥||

    Eye dont cum hear too carect your gramer.

  • Calitaxian||

    Ok now thats just insulting.

  • H. ReardEn||

    Or the incorrect use of 'your'.

    Not to be 'that grammar guy', but you brought it up.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a different argument than you were making before. I agree with you on this one.

  • Zeb||

    I doubt anyone here disagrees.

  • $park¥||

    Maybe you should read all of the comments.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Who has posted comments that disagree with that?

  • ant1sthenes||

    The progs already found their route there. This (like the hyperregulation of abortion clinics) amounts to attacking them with their own weapons. It's shitty, but how else will they learn how it feels to be treated the way they treat everyone else?

  • 21044||

    Yes, this law is a finger to the progs. Good fun as long as the law is written so that everybody has to have a gun, unless they don't want one.

    I'd like to put up a sign at the entrance to my neighborhood stating that 10 home owners are armed, you guess which ones.

  • $park¥||

    as long as the law is written so that everybody has to have a gun, unless they don't want one.

    Then what would be the point?

  • Calitaxian||

    What if it said no one can have one... unless you want one.

  • $park¥||

    Well, isn't that what exists now? You prove that you want one by acquiring a license to own one.

  • Generic Stranger||

    No. Very few localities require licenses to own a firearm.

  • 21044||

    To be a pure symbol, perhaps a legislative finger.

    Or perhaps, a legislative way of saying, "10 home owners are armed, you guess which ones."

  • $park¥||

    Seriously? There aren't enough laws on the books that you're willing to have another law made that says specifically what is already the default condition? What's to stop you from putting that sign up now?

  • Calitaxian||

    I guess he hasn't seen Stossel bring out his boxes of laws every episode.

  • 21044||

    Columbia HOA keeps me from putting up the sign I want. I know it is embarrassing that I live in such a suck ass place. Damn, Maryland is bad enough, but Columbia ...

    Seriously, I don't want this town to pass this law. The right to defend oneself is a fundamental freedom. The 2nd amendment merely affirms that freedom. No additional laws are required. That this town is even considering this law is because there are those that do not believe that the defending oneself is a fundamental right and the town is just trying to make a point, as futile as it may be.

    I don't need to see Stossel. I have seen the future of this country; I lived in the UK for 15 years. I had a wife beating piece of shit village cop sign my shotgun certificate attesting to my "good character." To obtain that shotgun certificate I had to sign away what would be the protections of the 4th Amendment and agree to allowing the police to enter my home 24/7/365 to check "safe storage" of my shotguns. "Safe storage" was not defined. I left in '92. Things have only gotten worse since then.

    So I am not a "pure" libertarian, so fucking what. I've never claimed to be a libertarian, just leaning to the libertarian side. As soon as I read those claiming to be pure libertarians defending union closed shops, I am glad I am not a pure libertarian. Marxist will reach pure Communism before Libertopia is ever closely reached.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement