Greenleaf Idaho... to require people to own guns?
- Thread starter IdahoFarmer
- Start date
- Status
Manedwolf
member
I wish NH would adopt that. It'd make all the anti MA transplants flee back south. 
crucible
Member
This is as silly as the local government banning them folks; the government should not be doing either (despite knowing if I was living there, I'd certainly wouldn't be breaking the law by default).
C-
C-
ID_shooting
Member
The title needs to be changed to REQUESTS.
They ran the same story on KTVB this morning. Tey want to request the people have fireamrs not require, big difference.
That said, I support them. Especially the training part.
For those that do not know, Greenleaf is a pass through town. Those of us that live near it drive through it every now and then. It is the 25 MPH spot on the hiway.
With the migrant alien population around there, with a good chunk of that being illegal, I think it is a good thing. If there were jobs, I would consider living there.
They ran the same story on KTVB this morning. Tey want to request the people have fireamrs not require, big difference.
That said, I support them. Especially the training part.
For those that do not know, Greenleaf is a pass through town. Those of us that live near it drive through it every now and then. It is the 25 MPH spot on the hiway.
With the migrant alien population around there, with a good chunk of that being illegal, I think it is a good thing. If there were jobs, I would consider living there.
longeyes
member
homeland security - like it 'sposed to be
Greenleaf, Idaho -- All Americans have the right to bear arms. Some towns have even gone as far as to require each household to have a gun. Now a small Idaho town is contemplating a similar idea-- it's called the Civil Emergencies Ordinance. And although gun ownership is just one piece of this ordinance, it's the part that's getting the most attention.
"We've blessed to be a fairly rural area of the state, so we don't have a lot of crime and I think we'd like to keep it that way," said Lee Belt, Greenleaf city clerk.
Drive about 10 minutes west of Caldwell and you'll run into Greenleaf, Idaho, population 860. If city council member Steve Jett has his way, each head of household that can legally own a gun, will. Along with that they're encouraged to have ammunition and appropriate training.
"I think the city council is hoping it will happen and that it will be a deterrent to crime as the city and region increases in population," said Belt.
The proposed ordinance is modeled after a similar plan that went into place in 1982 in Kennesaw, Ga. In that instance there was a dramatic decrease in criminal activity. Although crime isn't a huge problem for residents of Greenleaf, the growth in neighboring counties leads them to believe they too are in for some changes.
"There's not a lot of crime here, but I think it's coming, it's getting worse everyday," said Art Bailey, owner of the Greenleaf Store.
While the plan does encourages firearm ownership, the ordinance goes beyond that.
"The largest part itself deals with emergency capabilities," said Belt.
The plan will establish an emergency response plan, and promote its citizen response teams and neighborhood watch volunteer groups, a proactive approach to keep the crime rate to a minimum. So how have residents responded? According to almost everyone we spoke to, they already owned a gun or multiple guns, so this would have no effect on them either way.
"I don't know if it is good for every household, but we being hunters have always had guns," said Bonnie Cagle, a Greenleaf resident.
"I think it is an excellent idea," said Bailey. "If the citizens are armed were not at a disadvantage."
We did ask to speak with the city council member who proposed the ordinance but he was out of town. In November, the council will decide whether or not to adopt the ordinance.
Greenleaf, Idaho -- All Americans have the right to bear arms. Some towns have even gone as far as to require each household to have a gun. Now a small Idaho town is contemplating a similar idea-- it's called the Civil Emergencies Ordinance. And although gun ownership is just one piece of this ordinance, it's the part that's getting the most attention.
"We've blessed to be a fairly rural area of the state, so we don't have a lot of crime and I think we'd like to keep it that way," said Lee Belt, Greenleaf city clerk.
Drive about 10 minutes west of Caldwell and you'll run into Greenleaf, Idaho, population 860. If city council member Steve Jett has his way, each head of household that can legally own a gun, will. Along with that they're encouraged to have ammunition and appropriate training.
"I think the city council is hoping it will happen and that it will be a deterrent to crime as the city and region increases in population," said Belt.
The proposed ordinance is modeled after a similar plan that went into place in 1982 in Kennesaw, Ga. In that instance there was a dramatic decrease in criminal activity. Although crime isn't a huge problem for residents of Greenleaf, the growth in neighboring counties leads them to believe they too are in for some changes.
"There's not a lot of crime here, but I think it's coming, it's getting worse everyday," said Art Bailey, owner of the Greenleaf Store.
While the plan does encourages firearm ownership, the ordinance goes beyond that.
"The largest part itself deals with emergency capabilities," said Belt.
The plan will establish an emergency response plan, and promote its citizen response teams and neighborhood watch volunteer groups, a proactive approach to keep the crime rate to a minimum. So how have residents responded? According to almost everyone we spoke to, they already owned a gun or multiple guns, so this would have no effect on them either way.
"I don't know if it is good for every household, but we being hunters have always had guns," said Bonnie Cagle, a Greenleaf resident.
"I think it is an excellent idea," said Bailey. "If the citizens are armed were not at a disadvantage."
We did ask to speak with the city council member who proposed the ordinance but he was out of town. In November, the council will decide whether or not to adopt the ordinance.
I have mixed feelings...
I like the idea of ammo and training, but forcing someone to keep a gun in their house
It says "the right". We have the right to free speach, but no one forces us to talk. I like guns as much as the rest of us, maybe more, but I don't want a government body telling me to own or not own firearms. I think that its a personal choice, and should remain as such.
I like the idea of ammo and training, but forcing someone to keep a gun in their house
It says "the right". We have the right to free speach, but no one forces us to talk. I like guns as much as the rest of us, maybe more, but I don't want a government body telling me to own or not own firearms. I think that its a personal choice, and should remain as such.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Hm, this sounds familiar:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/
Car Knocker
Member
As Jorg pointed out it is all to familiar. That thing in Virgin blew over in a couple of months back when they tried it. Was a big tado here in Utah in 2000.
Why can't the guvment just step to the side and let Liberty work. You don't need to pass laws to encourage marriage. It is a good thing and will happen on it's own. Don't need to encourage Firearm ownership, once a man has property and a family to protect, it will happen in due course. And that is the best course. People need to come to the conclusion on their own where they stand on these issues, it is OK for us to lead and teach, but compel?
Any man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still- not sure who said that originally
Why can't the guvment just step to the side and let Liberty work. You don't need to pass laws to encourage marriage. It is a good thing and will happen on it's own. Don't need to encourage Firearm ownership, once a man has property and a family to protect, it will happen in due course. And that is the best course. People need to come to the conclusion on their own where they stand on these issues, it is OK for us to lead and teach, but compel?
Any man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still- not sure who said that originally
SJG26
member
Read the bigger picture.................
It's not just firearms, but part of a larger "Emergency Preparedness" plan. Novel concept - be repsponsible for your own well being - the Gov't is not going to be {totally} there for you.
Great idea - not that it would ever fly in most Eastern liberal bastions
It's not just firearms, but part of a larger "Emergency Preparedness" plan. Novel concept - be repsponsible for your own well being - the Gov't is not going to be {totally} there for you.
Great idea - not that it would ever fly in most Eastern liberal bastions
Amish_Bill
Member
I believe a town called Kennesaw just up the road from me was the first to do this. The break-in related crime rate dropped like a stone shortly thereafter. Go figure.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That would work. I can imagine saying to a home invader, "Freeze! And stay froze while I find the armorer, get him to open the armory, issue me a weapon and ammunition, and come back to deal with you."
Malone LaVeigh
Member
tellner,
That shirt is exactly what I thought about when I saw the thread title. You beat me to it.
That shirt is exactly what I thought about when I saw the thread title. You beat me to it.
If a law like that is passed, I think it would be wise to provide training in handling and shooting for those that need it. I would hate to mandate that people who know nothing about guns get one. They will just put it on a shelf and never use it or mess with it until they think they need it.
Geronimo45
Member
If the government mandates firearms ownership, they ought to have free training for folks - especially regarding safety. Otherwise some idiot kid's (or idiot's kid, could be either) liable to get a gun and shoot somebody, and they'll sue the city/county for the ordinance.
Vern Humphrey
Member
What training is needed? Today, we require no training for people to buy firearms -- and the firearms accident rate is very low and falling steadily.
Geronimo45
Member
Training to avoid the city being sued - if it orders the guns to be there, it's probably legally responsible for any idiots getting killed.
Vern Humphrey
Member
What training is that? What skills and knowledge must the graduates of the course demonstrate?
You'd just whip through the armory's drivethru window. Duh.
Seriously, I was assuming that most people would already be personally armed, the armory would be for heavier weapons and/or emergency supplies; the point of this thing isn't burglary prevention but civil emergency preparedness.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The most recent civil emergency I can think of was in New Orleans, just over a year ago -- and the civil government completely broke down. I doubt if many people could have reached the armory, even if it was open.
Recall also, that Massachusetts stored most of its militia arms in Fanneul Hall -- and the British conveniently confiscated the lot. When they started out after another armory at Concord, the citizens fought them with personal weapons.
A single, centrally located resource will always have that problem, but in a small town the disadvantages are mitigated by the simple lack of distance. Getting across NO in a hurricane is one thing, crossing getting to the firehouse in Rich Creek Va is another. And when the government breaks down is exactly when a lot of fence sitters would be shedding the last remains of sheeple thought and needing a rifle.
Recall that the reason for lightly armed citizens fighting a skirmish with British regulars was to maintain control of an armory full of supplies and heavy weapons. Artillery doesn't fit in the garage.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If some kind soul were to give me a pack 75, I'd keep it on the porch. A 105 would fit nicely in my garage.
- Status
