Every Head of Household Should Own a Firearm

[haldir]

Wasn't it some town in Ga. that passed some ordinance requiring the carrying of firearms a few years back... the idea comes to IN.

 

[NateIU10]

Kennesaw, GA has an ordinance that says everyone own a gun I believe.

 

[Scutter01]

Wasn't it some town in Ga. that passed some ordinance requiring the carrying of firearms a few years back... the idea comes to IN.

IIRC, you don't have to carry, just have to own. I can't recall the town name, though.

 

[danielocean03]

IIRC, you don't have to carry, just have to own. I can't recall the town name, though.

And I'll bet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Good for them.

 

[Pami]

Wasn't it some town in Ga. that passed some ordinance requiring the carrying of firearms a few years back... the idea comes to IN.

Kennesaw, GA has an ordinance that says everyone own a gun I believe.

IIRC, you don't have to carry, just have to own. I can't recall the town name, though.

It's Kennesaw, and the head of household is required "to own at least one firearm with ammunition."
Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Better still.. according to wikipedia, Kennesaw was named one of the "10 Best Towns for Families" in Family Circle in 2007.
Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DRob]

Kennesaw

I think Kennesaw passed the law in response to the Village of Morton Grove, IL ordinance which flatly prohibited gun ownership by residents. I believe the village council members exempted themselves and thereby exemplified the term "village idiots".

 

[Bill of Rights]

IIRC, you don't have to carry, just have to own. I can't recall the town name, though.

As others have said, it's Kennesaw, GA, and the ordinance was passed in 1986 in response to the handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, IL. Kennesaw has grown exponentially in population and their violent crime rate does remain lower than it was 22 years ago when the law passed.

All of this information is spoken of frequently, but what I never saw until a few minutes ago was the actual text of the ordinance. I went looking and found it at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=10&pid=12813.

The ordinance reads:

ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(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 therefor.
(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.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
(Code 1986, § 11-1-4)

It should be noted here that the above ordinance has no "teeth"; there is no punishment for violating it. However, just the idea that firearm ownership is strongly encouraged by it's presence is enough to help cut the crime rate of a community that, at the time of passage, exceeded the national average.

This all boils down to the simple fact that guns save lives, when held by those who would use them only in their own defense.

Blessings,
B

 

[danielocean03]

As others have said, it's Kennesaw, GA, and the ordinance was passed in 1986 in response to the handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, IL. Kennesaw has grown exponentially in population and their violent crime rate does remain lower than it was 22 years ago when the law passed.

All of this information is spoken of frequently, but what I never saw until a few minutes ago was the actual text of the ordinance. I went looking and found it at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=10&pid=12813.

The ordinance reads:



It should be noted here that the above ordinance has no "teeth"; there is no punishment for violating it. However, just the idea that firearm ownership is strongly encouraged by it's presence is enough to help cut the crime rate of a community that, at the time of passage, exceeded the national average.

This all boils down to the simple fact that guns save lives, when held by those who would use them only in their own defense.

Blessings,
B

Now with irrefutable proof like that, why on earth do people still argue that lawful gun ownership doesn't have a positive impact on crime?

 

[cce1302]

Now with irrefutable proof like that, why on earth do people still argue that lawful gun ownership doesn't have a positive impact on crime?

How many roads must a man walk down?

 

[Scutter01]

How many roads must a man walk down?

42.

 

[concrete dog]

this is good maybe someone in indiana well take notice and some things in this state will change

 

[elaw555]

42.

If he is carrying a pound of bacon then the answer is 21.375

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now with irrefutable proof like that, why on earth do people still argue that lawful gun ownership doesn't have a positive impact on crime?

The usual answer the antis give is that Kennesaw is just such a little town, and such tactics would never be applicable or work in a big city or on any other large scale. Oddly enough, they're never willing to try to find out, and they conveniently ignore the facts of Kennesaw's population growth and their total crime and crime rate both staying low, while Morton Grove lost population and their crime and crime rate went up. Kennesaw, BTW, is a suburb of Atlanta, not the most crime free major city in the country.

I would like to see a law put in place that totally removed any gun laws from a major city (or state). All of them: Federal, state, and local, for a period of ten years, the same duration as Clinton's AWB. I would like to see a dual record kept by the Brady bunch and by GOA or JPFO, of a specific group of crimes: Homicide, armed robbery, robbery, rape, etc.
I would like to see that area have a strong "push" of voluntary gun education and training in the year leading up to the effective date of the law. Lastly, I would like to see the news media reporting the times that crimes were stopped as well as the times that they were successful, noting which times the crimes were stopped by armed citizens. Given these circumstances, I would be willing to bet money that violent crime numbers and rates might initially rise for about a month or two, but then would quickly diminish and remain low for the remainder of the ten year period. I would be willing to see this law pass with a built-in "sunset" provision that could be overridden at any time during that ten year period. If overridden, that law would become permanent.

It would be very interesting to see. If passed for a place like Indianapolis, given a year notice before the law went into effect, everyone who wished to do so could leave and live in other communities if they so chose, but a law like this would quickly put an end to the antis claims that gun laws work. Punish crimes people commit, not property they own.



Blessings,
B