Geuda Springs City Council requiring all homes to be equipped with a firearm and ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Geuda Springs City Council requiring all homes to be equipped with a firearm and ammu

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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. â€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.â€

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.
 
Hamilton would be proud.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I want to assemble once or twice in the course of a year to prove that I have functional weapons.
 
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.
 
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 ???!!!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
But requiring people to own firearms is just as immoral as banning them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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

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 [email protected]

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."
 
SEE???????????????????

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Kan. Town Requires Homes to Have Guns
Replies
3
Views
406
Tierhog
T
O
  • Locked
CNN Article: Kansas Town Requires Gunownership
Replies
1
Views
299
AJ Dual
A
S
  • Locked
Mich city may approve Muslim prayer call
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
TheBluesMan
T
M
  • Locked
Kan. Town Requires Homes to Have Guns
Replies
2
Views
500
pax
P
Rockrivr1
  • Locked
Town Requires Residence To Get A Gun!
Replies
2
Views
538
Mal H
Mal H
Back
Top