[Desertdog]

Attorney looking at Geuda gun law
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w031115/Thurs2.html

By KATHY KENDRICK, Arkansas City Traveler

GEUDA SPRINGS — The fate of an ordinance recently passed by the Geuda Springs City Council requiring all homes to be equipped with a firearm and ammunition is currently unknown, pending an investigation by Thomas Herlocker, City Attorney.

Council members with a three to two vote on Nov. 3 approved the ordinance. Council members Nathan Cook and Scott Ferguson voting against the proposition.

The law would require that all homes within the community be equipped with a gun. The ordinance states that, “In order to provide for emergency management of the city, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition.”

The legality of the law is currently being looked into, and a report is expected to be given at the next meeting of the council on the first Monday in December.

“There’s really not much to tell about it right now,” Cook said Wednesday morning. “Everything has been turned over to our lawyer. It’s pretty much out of our hands. The attorney will look over everything and get back with us at our next meeting.”

Cook said he has not received much feedback from the public on the issue.

“I think the majority of the people here don’t even know (the ordinance) went through or what it is about,” Cook said.

Herlocker said he is still looking into the matter and will receive help from the Kansas attorney general regarding the ordinance.

“I have a call in to the attorney general’s office,” Herlocker said Wednesday morning. “Somebody had faxed the information to the sheriff in Wellington, and he turned around and faxed it right to the attorney general. If he wouldn’t have done it, I would have. I have some concerns about the ordinance that I will address at the next regular meeting. I advised the city clerk and the mayor that it is not a good idea to publish the ordinance until the council gets another chance to discuss the issue.”

Gerald Gilkey, Sumner County Sheriff, also expressed some concern over the proposed law.

“I obtained a copy of the ordinance and got a copy sent to the attorney general,” Gilkey said. “I think there are some loopholes in this, and I don’t know if there is any constitutionality to it. It is my understanding that the law has been passed by the city council, but it has not been published yet, so it really has not yet become law.”

Gilkey said that he is not clear exactly on the reasons for the ordinance.

“The only reason I have heard for it is to show other towns that they are not afraid to possess guns,” Gilkey said. ”This causes some concern not only for the citizens, but also for law enforcement officers. When we take calls in a residential situation, it is already very intense, especially in domestic violence cases. Though we always assume the people have weapons, when we know that everyone has one, it throws up a red flag to us.”

Several efforts were made to contact the Geuda Springs city clerk, but none of the calls had been returned as of press time.

The next scheduled meeting of the Geuda Springs City Council will be at 7 p.m. Dec. 1 at the city building, 117 South First St.

[publius]

Hamilton would be proud (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html).

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

I'm not sure I want to assemble once or twice in the course of a year to prove that I have functional weapons.

[Azrael256]

Would they, perchance, be willing to issue said firearms and ammunition?

[jimpeel]

Geuda Springs; is that where Geuda cheese comes from? :neener:

This is another city like the one in Kennesaw, GA and Virgin, UT that passed the same thing. In their cases, however, they stated that the law was more symbolic in nature.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Virgin, Utah has a similar ordinance and it IS legal. I believe each town should have a volunteer company of Minutemen in case the British attack:D

[Diamondback]

When will the insanity end.........one can no more constitutionally legislate manditory gun ownership than prohibit possesion and ownership !

What if the Geuda Springs City Council had acted differently, arranged a program such as follows, and sent something like this in a letter to each citizen within the juristiction of Geuda Springs ? :

"Dear Geuda Springs Resident;
'Due to the rising costs of essential services, dwindling tax revenues, and an increase in crime the City Council has arranged the following program : BLANK ( ....the local gun shop) has kindly agreed to sell each household ( legally allowed ) within the limits of Geuda Springs one legal firearm at 10% over cost within the next 12 months beginning next month. The city has also made arrangements to offer a four hour firearm training class free of charge to every citizen of Geuda Springs ( lets say the second Thurs. evening and fourth Sat. morning ) of every month for the next three months. The class, taught by volunteer certified firearms instructors, will cover basic firearms safety, handling, and laws. Also the class will give each participant the opportunity for hands on training and live fire. A nominal donation of $10 is requested to cover the cost of ammuntion. At the completion the four hour class each participant will receive a free ( 20, 25, 50 ????? round ) box of ammuntion donated by ( Federal, Remington, Hornady.....who ever is willing to participate ). Further, the local gun club has generously agreed to give one hour of free range time to everyone who completes the 4 hour firearms training class. Also the gun club is offering a reduced yearly membership with range privledges to those who have completed the course.
While the City Council cannot nor has any intention of forcing any household to participate in this program we strongly encourage you, in the spirit of good citizenship, to join this community effort to help insure the safety of all residents........and the freedoms and privledges of the Constitution.
Sincerely,
The City Council of Geuda Springs
PS For those in need of child care in order to attend a scheduled class, free child care is available. A group of local mothers have volunteered to provide this service. Please call BLANK to make arrangements.' "

I know this presupposes quite a bit.......its probably very silly......but I can dream can't I ???!!!!!

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

We began as a nation of militiamen. All were expected to defend. That is our heritage. We did not begin as a nanny state.

[Don Galt]

Yeah, such a letter like that woudl be a good thing.

Instead, the city council said "We have the right to decide how you live" and passed a law that VIOLATES The second ammendment!

What if the head of the household happens to be someone who does not feel that they are responsible enough to own a gun? What if they are just getting by meeting the basic responsibilities of getting to work each day because of some defect, problems, or issues they are going thru?

The second ammendment rights give everyone the right to choose not to own, maintain or otherwise bear arms.

This is anti-second ammendment legislation, and should be struck down. I'm all for encouraging firearms ownership-- and any city council who works to remove roadblocks to said ownership gets my support.

But requiring people to own firearms is just as immoral as banning them.

[Diamondback]

Very true ! But we are where we are now.....the question seems to me to be: " how do we 'recruit' new citizen militia." I believe we need to find ways to bring new people on board. The Second Ammendment won't stand without the support of the majority. We MUST become the majority again ! I am looking to find ways to convert the ignorant and the fearful.

[Mark Tyson]

But requiring people to own firearms is just as immoral as banning them.

I see your point, but there have always been exceptions to the militia requirement that addressed that. For example, some state constitutions and the early draft of the 2nd amendment made exceptions for people who are religiously opposed to bearing arms ie conscientious objectors. I don't think anyone's going to throw people in jail for NOT having a gun here, the law is just a statement of principle.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I look at it as affirming a right, not an intrusion. It will be virtually unenforceable. Relax. It is a message , not an absolute.

[Don Galt]

If they wanted a message, they could have sent a message by sending a message!

And they could have taken actions to support it.

The decision to require it, even if the fines are small, is a violation.

If we accept violatins of the constitution that we like and ignore the fact that they are violations, it undermines our ability to stand on principle against violations we don't like.

That's the message I was trying to get across. :D

[ojibweindian]

While I am all for encouraging firearms ownership, I believe passing an ordinance requiring ownership is the wrong way to go about it. Just as people have a right to keep and bear arms, they also have a right to be defenseless, if that is what they so choose.

Encouragement to own weapons could be done in many different ways. One would be to provide tax discounts to those who own weapons. Another would be the establishment of an armory, subject to a vote, and the issuance of a weapon to those who choose to keep one.

Regardless, the main thing is to make sure that individual rights are maintained, and that the government be kept out of regulating individual freedoms as much as possible.

[Mark Tyson]

Weren't there colonial era laws requiring militia members to be armed with their personal weapons?

[WAGCEVP]

Kennesaw Georgia was the first to have such law! Then virgin utah, Now gueda springs Arkansas ? KEWL! Go fer it!


While I am all for encouraging firearms ownership, I believe passing an ordinance requiring ownership is the wrong way to go about it. Just as people have a right to keep and bear arms, they also have a right to be defenseless, if that is what they so choose.


In the KENNESAW GEORGIA Ordinance there IS a "conscientious objector" clause" folks! unlike the gungrabbers, NOBODY is forcing anybody to own a firearm if they don't want.jeeezz!
it's NOT like the pro gun police are going door to door checking to see if the homeowner has a gun or not. it more symbolic than anything , people!
I'm for it all the way. Hell we tried to get the kennesaw law passed state wide a few years ago here in Georgia. Is it NOT better than passing an ordinance like Morton Grove ILL that BANS guns????????? You can bet your last Freedom, that they DO check on guns in homes in MGI.


No us pro gun folks are NOT the monsters the gun grabbers are, but we DO want to keep our right to defend our families , property and liberty UNINFRINGED!

[WAGCEVP]

when the bad guys THINK that everyone owns a firearm they take their bussiness elsewhere.......... no?
========================================

GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA (Crime Rate Plummets)

News/Current Events Breaking News News Keywords: GUN CRIME PREVENTION
Source: email
Published: Jan 2000 Author: Chuck Baldwin
Posted on 02/13/2000 17:20:23 PST by Boomerang@no-income-tax.com

GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA
Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired."

[WAGCEVP]

Code of Ordinances & Gun Law

Gun Law Ordinances
The City's most famous ordinance adopted in March 1982 reads as follows. Click here for a link to the Police Department

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

for statistical information on crime or contact the City Clerks office for additional information.

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 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.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Good post. E-mail that to AP, NYT, WP, and AJC! Oh, and the LA Slime. And Denver. And Morton Grove IL

[WAGCEVP]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rdsandman/morton.htm


6-2-3: FIREARM POSSESSION PROHIBITED/EXCEPTIONS:
Police and military



related articles
http://www.vpc.org/press/9503mg.htm
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Cook/Public_Safety_Ordinance.htm

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I am torn here. There is a US constitutional amedment which forbids the federal government from infringing the RKBA. I thought that it was assumed that federal supremacy would prohibit total bans (i know, in reality there have been bans in NY, DC, etc., but in MG, IL?). On the other hand, people do have the right to assemble and work locally to develop the type of environment they want.

So, if there is no federal supremacy here, are we beating our heads against the wall? Is the majority of a city/county/state allowed to ban/limit firearms? Is there no check and blance? Move to another location more in line with your beliefs?

Sorry for the naivete, but it just dawned on me that if this has happenned, where do we stand?

[PershingRiflesC-7]

After lurking here forever, this subject caused me to register.

I was born and raised about two miles from Gueda Springs KS. It is barely any more than a wide spot in the road with a Farmland Co-op grain elevator as the main business. If 200 people live within the corporate limits, I would be surprised. Even the closest towns of any size, Arkansas City and Winfield, are only about 12,000 population.

Since they are in Kansas, the better RKBA action would seem to me to be to do something about that collection of RINO's they call a legislature and carpetbagger governor to really do something about CCW. My gosh, the state most referenced by the anti-CCW crowd (if everybody has a gun, it will be just like "Dodge City") is about to be surpassed by a bunch of cheese-heads in Wisconsin....:) :) :) :) !!!!

This is just symbolism when applied to this specific situation.

[ojibweindian]

If there is a conscientious objection clause, then I don't have a problem with the passing of such a law.

[mcole]

gueda springs is in north, central kansas. mcole

[Don Galt]

Depends on the objection clause. IF its a strong one, then what is the point of having the law? There is no law.

IF its a weak one, theren there might as well not be an objector clause.

The law is still unconstitutional-- some people object without having a religious reason. (like they are too irresponsible or unstable.)

You think they should have to got to the courthouse and get approval from a judge or some buro-crat for their right to *not* have a gun?

This thing is just a bad idea.

I agree with our Kansas friend-- if they wanted to do the right thing, they should have just passed vermont style CCW in their town.

[jimpeel]

Welcome to the boards.

Go forth and lurk no more. :D

[PershingRiflesC-7]

Jim -- thanks for the welcome, glad to be here...

mcole -- I checked Gueda Springs with Mapquest and it put me in the middle of Lyons KS for some unknown reason. However, if you will enter Arkansas City KS in the Mapquest search, you will find GS on the Cowley County & Sumner County line (west of Arkansas City) at the intersection with Cowley county highway 10. Are you from Kansas, too?

[Bob Locke]

I don't like it.

The town should no more have the authority to decide that you WILL have a firearm in your howm than it should have that you WILL NOT.

The decision should lie solely with the homeowner. Period.

[mcole]

pershing rifle, i am from kansas. when i was in college worked for the kansas highway comm for a number of summers and traveled all of the state. knew kansas had a "gueda springs" but couldn't remember where it was. i did use map quest and it put it up in north central kansas; my recollection was that it was in s.w. kansas? mcole

[owen]

I see this as enforcing an individuals duties to society. Like jury duty and voting, providing for the common defense is a civic duty. This town is just telling its citizens how to go about it.

Owen

[Don Galt]

Owen, do you realize that's a socialists view of society?

For instance, conscription. Socialism says we owe the government our lives.

The Capitalist way is to let everyone defend themselves, or voluntarily join a government run army.

[carpettbaggerr]

If the government can tell us we must have smoke detectors in our homes, then they can tell us we must have firearms. No difference at all. Maybe this will wake some of the anti's up to the over-extension of government powers in America.

[Double Naught Spy]

Sure enough, the gov't can't infringe on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Believe it or not, that means (or should mean) that they can't keep you from keeping and bearing arms and they CAN'T make you keep and bear arms. The right is infringed when it is not allowed or becomes manatory. Having the right to keep and bear arms also means having the right to NOT keep and bear arms. The term 'right' means you have the option.

It isn't a right if you have to do it against your wishes. Remember the mandatory draft?

[Bill Hook]

I would think a resolution encouraging residents to have guns for protection is better than another damned law, which we have far too many of already.

[BluesBear]

There IS an objector clause in the proposed ordinance. (boldface added for clarity)
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.
So, effect, they are not FORCING anyone to own a gun.

[Baba Louie]

G"E"uda Springs, down by the Ark River... Winfield and Ark City near the OK border

G"U"eda Springs... Lyon County

Depends on how ya spell it.
The one under discussion is down near Winfield methinks... veritable wide spot in road as PershingRifles says...

Adios

[ksnecktieman]

When our country was in the process of becoming a country, was it not stated in law that every man belonged to the militia and was required to provide his own musket, and ball and powder? I am not a historian, and I can not quote it.
Did not George Washingtons soldiers have to provide their own weapons? By law?

[2dogs]

It's a trick to make confiscation easier: when the time comes they'll know who to go to (um...........everyone).:uhoh: ;)

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, the 2A protects the right to bear arms, not the right NOT to bear arms. Not saying that it doesn't exist. It just ain't in the 2nd.:)

[Mark Tyson]

I just saw a Brady member on MSNBC talking about this law. Do you think this is doing more harm than good to the RKBA movement? The residents are being portrayed as nutty.

One town with less than 300 people passes a law like this and it's national news, but if a major city banned handguns or something like that it would be seen as "common sense".

Oh yeah, the guy say said that the Brady campaign is not against gun ownership! Nearly knocked me out of my chair.

[clubsoda22]

Forcing everyone in town to own a gun is just as bad as banning guns completely.

Certain people don't want to own firearms, they should not have to. In fact, this law is dangerous. Those who don't want to own a gun probably won't bother to train with it and won't exercise proper safety. Some people simply can not handle the responsibility, know that, and therefore don't own guns.

Anyway, it's unconstitutional....NEXT.

[Cosmoline]

I don't like it either. It reminds me of certain nations which attempt to make voting mandatory. Granted, this is on a *much* smaller scale. But the underlying premise is still incorrect. No government can mandate that you own iron, anymore than government can madate you vote.

Also, I think the 2A is implicated, espcially if you take a broader view of it. The Second is about limiting the government's ability to regulate private ownership and possession of firearms. In this interpretation, a law forcing all good citizens of der Fatherland to have firearms is just as bad as one forbidding all citizens from owning them. In both cases the state is exceeding its authority, and in both cases the results are disturbing. A government that can mandate firearm ownership can take it away, as well.

[BluesBear]

They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

What such a law does, however, is make it more difficult for another jurisdiction to pass an ordinance banning firearms. It sets a clear precident for firearms ownership. And that, in itself, is a good thing.

[Glock Glockler]

They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

Then what, pray tell, is the point of passing such a law if everybody can say "I object" and do as they did before? It's a waste of ink, time, and it lays the groundwork as precedant for other stupid laws.

[BluesBear]

...and it lays the groundwork as precedant for other stupid laws.
ROFLMAO :what:

Do you REEEEAAALLLY think that this law will be considered the precedent for stupid laws?

Look around brother, there's a LOT of stupid laws out there MUCH more inane than this one.

You take the total number of gunowners in this country and I'll wager that over 50% of them would be considered incompetent to own them by most members of this board.

You'd think that ANY law that encourages lawfull gun ownership would be welcomed with open arms. (no pun intended) Nothing in this ordinance says that the homeowner has do do anything with the gun except maintain it and possess correct ammo for it. You don't have to carry it. Shoot it. Answer the door with it. Defend your neighbors life with it.
Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Do nothing but possess it.

You're energies would be better served by whining about the bad laws depriving good people their God-given rights instead of moaning and groaning about one that reinforces them.:rolleyes:

[Glock Glockler]

Look around brother, there's a LOT of stupid laws out there MUCH more inane than this one.

So because there's a lot of stupidity out there it's fine if we add a little stupidity to the mix. Sounds great!!!

You'd think that ANY law that encourages lawfull gun ownership would be welcomed with open arms.

This does not encourage anything, it requires it, and there's a world of difference. If they want to encourage it they can tell people about classes for gun handling, maintenence, CCW, self-defense, situational awareness, etc. That would be encouraging it, your law is nothing like that.

I oppose that law because fails to leave me alone. That is what made us a great nation, stupid govt regulations are what's taking us down.

Nothing in this ordinance says that the homeowner has do do anything with the gun except maintain it and possess correct ammo for it. You don't have to carry it. Shoot it. Answer the door with it. Defend your neighbors life with it.
Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Do nothing but possess it.

Then what bloody good does it do, except drain my bank account, to be forced to possess and maintain a firearm, regardless of my interest or skill with it? Some people dont have guns and we're the better for them not having guns, why force something on someone if they want no part of it?

You're energies would be better served by whining about the bad laws depriving good people their God-given rights instead of moaning and groaning about one that reinforces them

1 - That law reinforces no right, actually it infringes on my rights. A right is an inherent freedom that imposes no obligation on anyone else, and that law imposes on my a requirement to own a piece of property I might not want to own. My energies would be better served if I didnt have to engage in debates over stupid laws like this.

Can you get this simple message through your head?

LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

[ksnecktieman]

glock? Maybe you should consider this law as satire. I would like to see you challenge it on second amendment grounds in court. If you can take this one to court and win, then we will have second ammendment grounds to stop all restrictive gun laws. It would be a wonderful precedent, for the "individual rights" interpretation of the second amendment. Who knows, you might even get Sarah Brady and Charles Schumer to join in with you.

I am in Kansas, and if I find they are proposing a bill like this statewide, I will be pounding pavement and knocking on doors and telling everyone to support it.

I think I understand your point,,, I personally think they should not be allowed to pass a law, unless they repeal an old one that is no longer useful.:)

[BluesBear]

Then what bloody good does it do, except drain my bank account, to be forced to possess and maintain a firearm, regardless of my interest or skill with it? Some people dont have guns and we're the better for them not having guns, why force something on someone if they want no part of it? OK let me repeat this one last time for those who can't comprehend...

They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

ex-empt adjective
free or released from some liability or requirement to which others are subject

That means you don't have to do it.

So there should be no drain on your bank account.
(Especially if you don't move to Geuda Springs, Arkansas)


I realize that you don't like the law.
I just haven't figured out which part you can't understand.

[Glock Glockler]

The only purpose of having a law is so that it may be enforced, why pass this law when it is essentially unenforcable?

It is completely pointless.

[AZRickD]

The conversation around here is nearly brain-dead.

The purpose of the law is political activism. The 3 to 2 council vote was a political statement (along the lines of the 1792 Militia Act) which you should damn-well hope your own town had the juevos to make.

Next item...

The city-councilman, (who is also the only city employee) was interviewed this morning on 960AM (Phoenix) at about 8am on the syndicated Laura Ingraham show. Laura is the author of "Shut Up and Sing."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261014/104-9797186-8924717?v=glance

The guy, who was rather soft-spoken and unassuming said some interesing things. One was when Laura, a fairly staunch conservative and Bush supporter asked if the people of his town were Bush supporters. He said that he didn't really know, (and didn't seem to really want to answer the question). He then said that folks from his town hadn't liked any of the passed presidents for quite some time.

Then Laura asked him who he would vote for in the next election. He said, "Probably whoever is the Libertarian candidate." Laura tried to seem unperplexed, but I could tell she was a bit bothered.

He also said something that was very illuminating. When he mentioned that his town didn't have a police force, he explained that it used to. It was during the Clinton "100,000 new cops on the street program." The guy said, with a measure of annoyance, "We had six cops in a town of 250." He repeated for emphasis, "Six cops...250 people. There was nothin' for them to do....except go around and try to find out if we were breakin' the law." The six were apparently gone in short order.

Rick