Brady allegedly to sue GA Town

[Vern Humphrey]

Of course, the government shouldn't be forcing people to buy either...

Well . . . the Constitution grants the Federal Government no powers regarding healthcare, so under the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government must leave that matter to the states.

But the Constitution does grant war powers to the Federal Government, and historically, the militia is a local organization which can be levied by the Federal Government. So a local government power, in keeping with its duty in regard to militia can require citizens to possess arms.

 

[Solo]

Laws mean nothing without enforcement, so who would go around making sure everyone required to have a gun is in compliance, and what would be an appropriate punishment for someone who decides that medical bills and their kid's college tuition took precedence over firearms and ammunition?

 

[Nickel Plated]

i believe the verbiage of the law states that it does not apply to those who object and there is no penalty for not complying with the law......

so the only people who are REQUIRED to buy a gun are the people who WANT to buy a gun.

unlike obama-care

I guess I am:
1. Against laws that require you to buy something and
2. Against having laws just for the sake of having them.

If it were enforced and violators punished, then it would fall into the first category. Since it is not enforced it falls in the second. If it doesn't REALLY require you to buy a gun since it's not enforced then what's the point of having it? What happened to "we have too many laws on the books"?

 

[DSling]

The law has no teeth. It seems the law is just saying that we recommend you buy a gun for your family's safety but if you don't want to its your choice...unlike obamacare

 

[Giterboosted]

Well I'm from not far from there and I just wish the Brady <deleted> would try to march or campaign down here, it would be a Great farce

 

[Hacker15E]

I guess I am:
1. Against laws that require you to buy something and
2. Against having laws just for the sake of having them.

If it were enforced and violators punished, then it would fall into the first category. Since it is not enforced it falls in the second. If it doesn't REALLY require you to buy a gun since it's not enforced then what's the point of having it? What happened to "we have too many laws on the books"?

+1

How can anyone on this board be against ObamaCare, but for an ordnance like this?

 

[1911Tuner]

I'm good with the Brady Bunch expending money and manpower pursuing this...but they might wanna rethink it because they just might win. If they win, they establish a precedent that could open the door to lawsuits in other towns and states that forbid ownership and/or possession within city limits...and those lawsuits would be based on a Constitutionally enumerated right.

Then again, the Bradys have never really seemed to have the capacity to think things through and arrive at practical or logical conclusions. Seems like I once read that a zealot is defined as someone who redoubles his efforts after losing sight of his goals.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As far as I am concerned, until I see a link to the court document, this lawsuit exists in a Brady Campaign press release and an e-mail soliciting funds, both based on false claims about the law.

Seriously, when Volokh Conspiracy covers a real lawsuit there are links to PDFs of the court filings. All we have right now is one AP story repeated by Businessweek, Newsday, CNN, HuffPost, Miami Herald, Fox News, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

As far as I am concerned, until I see a link to the court document, this lawsuit exists in a Brady Campaign press release and an e-mail soliciting funds, both based on false claims about the law.

Bingo! Until there IS a case, there ISN'T a case. The Bradys can put out press releases saying anything they want. Until they actually go to court, this is a non-story they've made up to get folks riled up.

 

[Midwest]

I'm good with the Brady Bunch expending money and manpower pursuing this...but they might wanna rethink it because they just might win. If they win, they establish a precedent that could open the door to lawsuits in other towns and states that forbid ownership and/or possession within city limits...and those lawsuits would be based on a Constitutionally enumerated right.

Then again, the Bradys have never really seemed to have the capacity to think things through and arrive at practical or logical conclusions. Seems like I once read that a zealot is defined as someone who redoubles his efforts after losing sight of his goals.

And it was said that the Kennesaw GA law in 1982 that mandated gun ownership was in response to the 1981 Morton Grove IL handgun ban. Some might say that Kennesaw Georgia law, which made headlines worldwide, was the 'opening shot' (pun intended) of the today's modern gun rights movement.

Some might argue that if Morton Grove IL did not enact its handgun ban in 1981, would Kennesaw GA still have passed a law mandating gun ownership? I don't know, but this was a classic example where the anti-gun crowd had something backfire on them.

 

[SleazyRider]

Georgia was a great state to live in, before we got overrun by damn yankee socialists.

Which ones in particular? Just curious.

 

[femoralis]

Legal requirements to own firearms have a very long history in the USA, and are perfectly constitutional.

----------------------------------------------------------------


Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 

[MtnCreek]

Which ones in particular? Just curious.

Mostly the ones that got here via I-85 and I-95. Some took the long route and went I-95 South to FL, then I-75 North into GA. Good news is they tend to like to stay near Atlanta.

 

[kwguy]

....So does slavery and Italian run organized crime....Doesn't make it constitutional!

Those things are constitutional?

I don't see why the NRA would bother with this at all. Why waste the time?

 

[Al Norris]

I had already read the complaint, a couple of days ago. But for you doubting Thomas' out there:

The case is Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence v. City of Nelson, Georgia et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings, filed on May 16, 2013 in the Northern District of Georgia. Case # 2:2013cv00104.

The Docket has been sent to the Internet Archive. You will find the complaint listed as document #1.at the archive.

I may or may not spend the money to update this case... Depends on if there is any interest over at TFL.

 

[Sam1911]

So does that mean that it has been decided that they DO have standing?

 

[Al Norris]

No, it is simply the initial filing.

Having read the complaint, I don't see where they have established organizational standing.

I know what's lacking, but I'll be darned if I say what the defect is on a public board and give them a clue.

 

[Colonel]

The law that the Brady Bunch are spending their money to fight was passed on April Fool's Day.

I love it.

 

[Texan Scott]

Trolling: Nelson, GA does it right.

 

[Jaymo]

The socialist ones. I thought I made that abundantly clear.
They move down here for jobs, lower taxes, etc, then whine about our guns and lack of government coddling.