The tiny Colorado town of Nucla has passed an ordinance making gun ownership mandatory.The Nucla Town Board last week voted to require that residents own firearms, but it has exceptions for heads of households who don't want to participate or who cannot legally possess a gun.
Nucla's ordinance passed by a 5-1 vote. It was inspired by the Family Protection Ordinance passed by the town of Nelson, Ga.
The Colorado town of less than 1,000 people becomes the latest of a handful of communities nationwide to pass such a rule. The measures are widely considered unenforceable.
"The main reason is to protect Second Amendment rights, especially with the government talking about abolishing them," said Nucla Town Board member Joshua Newingham. "Out here, we hunt, we do sports shooting. It's a way of life."
How many times have we heard the pro-gun lament that they don't tell us what to do, so we shouldn't tell them. Well, I guess in places like Nucla CO and Nelson GA we've got exceptions to that.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Well, I guess in places like Nucla CO and Nelson GA we've got exceptions to that.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'd call it. Most rules have exceptions. I imagine there are similarly a few people in the world who think guns are icky, but don't presume to keep them away from those who disagree.
As for the Nucla ordinance, it sounds more like a suggestion than a law, since "don't wanna do it" qualifies as an exemption. Kennesaw's law is similar in that regard, I believe (or has no penalty for non-compliance).
I've heard conflicting reports about Nelson's law--I've seen it said that it's basically toothless, like the others, but one article did say it has some penalties, and that exemptions aren't quite as easy as saying you don't wanna do it.
For the record, I don't think much of these laws, although if the Brady Campaign is really desperate enough to resort to the argument described here, there is perhaps more justification for such laws than I'd thought.
How is an ordinance that tells you that you don't have to comply an act of telling you what to do? Here's a deal though. I'll accept any gun control that is formulated this way: Don't own or carry guns--unless you want to.
ReplyDeleteI'll second that motion. I'll support an AWB that states: "all 'assault weapons' are hereby banned except for those who want them".
DeleteGo ahead. Break the law. I will laugh when the cell door slams behind you leaving your virgin arsehole prey to your muscular "bubba" of a cellmate. You are helpless without your boomsticks. It will be funny when you can't buy a gun cause you are a felon.
DeleteWhat law, specifically, do you mean?
DeleteI don't agree with what they are doing, but it is quite clear that these are strictly symbolic and an act of lashing back against the gun control push. One of the exceptions is "if you don't want to". So no, they are not telling people what to do.
ReplyDeleteJust because a town of racist inbred guntard freaks decides to make their podunk little shitole a civilization free zone, doesn't change anything for the rest of us. In a short while they will ALL be dead because of their murderous stupidity, and we will laugh as a town of gun owners are gunned down by one of their own.
ReplyDeleteThe current numbers of murder, rape, and robbery are all zero in Kennesaw, Georgia. I'm not claiming cause and effect there, but your prejudiced rant is clearly misplaced.
DeleteThese laws are a form of political speech, much like the carious small governments that declared their jurisdictions to be nuclear free zones during the cold war. The main effect of the passage of time is that back then, people recognized it for what it was. I dont recall the US Attorney General or special interest groups threatening to sue the towns like they are today.
ReplyDelete