Amid the nation-wide attack of our 2nd Amendment rights, it's nice to know there are some "symbolic gestures" supportive of them.
===
Apr 2, 2013
The above article mentions the communities of Byron, Maine; Greenleaf, Idaho; Kennesaw and Nelson, Georgia; Spring City and Virgin, Utah; and Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania. Here's a newer article showing that Nelson did pass the law, joining Kennesaw in requiring all households to own a gun, unless you don't want to or are excluded based upon your legal status to own one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/small-georgia-town-passes-law-requiring-residents-to-own-guns/
===
May 18, 2013
It's not much of a surprise that this law is being challenged or that it's being done so by none other than the "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence". It might be a small surprise that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) group aren't mentioned.
"The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Nelson, about 50 miles north of Atlanta, claiming the law is unconstitutional. The suit contends the Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to have a gun, and government cannot require citizens to arm themselves."
The biggest surprise here is that the plaintiffs seem to show some knowledge of what's in the Constitution. They're correct - it doesn't require people to "keep" (own or possess) arms. But how did they determine that without reading to the end of the sentence and somehow miss the whole "shall not be infringed" part, which is what their organization is all about? Mysterious, isn't it?
Here are a couple other interesting statements - "Forcing residents to buy guns they do not want or need won't make the city of Nelson or its people any safer, and only serves to increase gun sales and gun industry profits." and "The lawsuit contends violators are subject to a fine of as much as $1,000, but Edwards said that is incorrect." It's interesting because the "law" is acknowledged to be symbolic with no penalty, no enforcement and built-in exceptions. I will admit the exceptions could be written more broadly that would make it even more obvious.
Does anyone doubt what this is really about? It has nothing to do with protecting the constitutional rights of citizens by PREVENTING them for being forced to own a gun. It's the opposite. They can't stand even a symbolic law that disagrees with their intent to violate the constitutional rights of citizens everywhere. "Shall not be infringed" - pretty simple.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/georgia-town-sued-over-law-requiring-gun-ownership/
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
No comments:
Post a Comment