If only every town were this way.

P

Petre

New member
I THINK THIS IS BRILLIANT!

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

Proposed Ordinance asks Each Household to Have a Firearm

Sep 21, 2006 09:26 AM CDT

Greenleaf Gun 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've said for years that such should be law in every state of the union...

like i've heard AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY!
 
I don't like it.

Making laws that say everyone must own a gun are just as antithetical to freedom as making laws that say nobody can own a gun.
 
I'll have to agree with Mark on this one. I don't want to be told I can't own a gun and I don't go around telling people they need to own a gun. Their protection isn't my problem. If they don't want to own guns and want to rely on others, that is their choice.
 
I agree I don't want to be forced to do anything and it's a God given right to choose to or not to do or own anything.

Perhaps a program to help all households that want to , to own a gun ?
 
Perhaps a program to help all households that want to , to own a gun ?
Click to expand...

Welfare for guns, I'd support it just because it would cause an implosion at the Brady Bunch, ACLU and Hillary would have a heart attack.
 
And the crime rate will remain identical to that of nearby towns without a similar ordinance.

Yes, it's nice mental self pleasure material, but it really doesn't prove anything or accomplish anything. The 2nd community seems to get more and more hung up on artifice than past substantive actions.
 
As much as I like my right to have guns, being required to have one would be overboard.

In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it's better for a criminal to KNOW you are armed than for him to be uncertain whether you are. The certainty would guarantee every robbery was an armed one and that you would be shot in advance of it.

Additionally, it flies in the face of anything resembling freedom.

Perhaps we should, instead, require Xanax in the water supply to keep criminals inactive.

Now, if your motive for a gun in every house is to repel a repressive government, what idiotic sort of government would pass a law requiring that?
 
Perhaps a program to help all households that want to , to own a gun ?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...A "doctors for guns" program.:D

Just kidding you. At first look, subsidized guns as you suggest might not be such a bad idea.

But I really think it's best left as a constitutional right.
 
Making laws that say everyone must own a gun are just as antithetical to freedom as making laws that say nobody can own a gun.
Click to expand...
OK! In my idealistic world by refusing to take steps to defend you and yours, you have just forfeited the right to demand that I pay for your defense.

Compulsion is a fact of human nature and quite often the reasons are valid.
 
I have to agree with Calvin and Marko, part of living in a free society is choosing which freedoms you would like to exercise.
 
Free Society

It may fly in the face of your idea of a free society, but lots of things we don't object to, or even think about do, and all for the public good.

You don't have a choice when it comes to paying for a police department, or a fire department, etc. If these things exist where you live, part of your money is spent on them. Constantly. Every year. Without end. And, often with periodic increases. Some places have abulance services in the same way. And Schools, if you own property, you pay a tax, whether you have children to go to school, or not. Not proper on a totally free society, which values individual liberty above all else, but we don't live in one of those. We never have. And I doubt we ever will.

I would consider a govt ordinance requiring the ownership of a firearm (and a certain amount of ammo), as another tax. Although one that was finite in cost. Once you purchased the arm (and ammo), the cost of upkeep is nil. Besides which, it is your "civic duty" to own a firearm, as part of the "unregulated militia".

By considering the requirement as a tax, it should, properly, apply only to property owners, like other taxes. Making a blanket statement that everyone must own a gun is not proper, in my opinion. I believe the Kennesaw GA ordnance exempted those with a religious objection, and those unable due to medical reasons. If I recall correctly, the Kennesaw law applied to "heads of households", not everyone.

The principle is quite old, several societies have had laws requiring arms be kept by the people, at times in the past. I believe there was even an old English law requiring bowmen to practice a required amount every so often.

Other than Switzerland, virtually all nations today have abandoned the concept of requiring citizens to posess weapons for their own defense. The Swiss requirement is military, but I think it has a certain impact on civilian crime rates as well. Of course, being a homogenious culture (despite speaking 3 or 4 "Official" languages) likely has more to do with their low rate of "street crime".

So, I don't see anything worn with a rule that, "if you own property, you must own a firearm, for emergency use". Don't want to own a gun? simple, don't own property. Free choice. Most states require auto insurance, along with licensing and registration to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. We don't seem to have a problem with that. Don't operate on public roads? don't buy the insurance, etc.

Perhaps a suitable "civil emergency" kit should be issued to property owners. Food, water, first aid kit, blankets (small tent?), suitable firearm and small amount of ammo,fire extinguisher, radio, batteries, etc., all packaged with a tanper indicating seal. Then we could create another govt agency to inspect the kits (yearly? semi annual? quarterly? monthly??) And have a form to be filled out if the seal has been broken. I'm sure we could tax some special interest group (shooters, coffee drinkers, chevy owners, etc..) to come up with the needed funds. Personally, I would like to see us tax the NON gun owner. Give the gun owner a tax break, after all, the non gun owner is actually costing us money for their protection. Anyway, I'm sure the politicians could figure out something, after all, don't we need something like this for Homeland Security, in this age of Terrorism? It's for the children, after all!
 
I think folks need to read the article a little more closely:

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
Click to expand...
...
While the plan does encourages firearm ownership, the ordinance goes beyond that.

"The largest part itself deals with emergency capabilities," said Belt.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine

I don't see any statement that indicates a requirement to own a firearm (at least for this town), just that it is encouraged. Equipping members of the community to assist with emergency response activities seems to be a fairly prudent step, especially for a small town. Emergency 'armed' response seems to just be one aspect, and if they are going to coordinate/provide training, i think the town would still be better off for it.
 
In the late '70s- early '80s, while Atlanta was known as "The Murder Capital", a little town just a few miles north of there, Kennesaw, Ga., passed just such an ordinance. Crime is almost non-existant. The Brady Bunch said, as they always do, that it would like the wild west.:)

badbob
 
As I surmised over at THR, Greenleaf is just 6 miles from Caldwell. Caldwell is having a real surge, both in population, gangs and related gang/drug crime. I suspect this is an action by the Greenleaf town council to prepare themselves for the inevitable clash of cultures.
 
My neighbor dislikes guns, and refuses to have one in his house. On the other hand, he knows I have one (not the bunch I have). He always says to me that if the SHTF he's coming to my house for me to protect him. Ordinarily I would tell a useless leech to get lost, but being a doctor he might come in handy!
 
I would consider a govt ordinance requiring the ownership of a firearm (and a certain amount of ammo), as another tax.
Click to expand...

Would this be like the $200 dollar tax on NFA items, because that is a great idea. Maybe as another form of tax, we can submit records to the city, and they can have a nice list of every gun and all the ammunition that we own.

I don't see anything wrong with requiring everyone to have a gun, as long as it is to stop crime. I think certain people, like blind people should be required to have TWO guns, because they are more likely to be robbed. And people with frequent domestic problems should of course have a gun, because in the middle of a fight...they could be robbed! I also think that alcoholics should be required to have a gun, because thieves know that they are easy targets, and they should be able to defend themselves.

Or if you put it in other words, you sound just like the anti-gun people must of us disagree with.

Lets make more laws and more bureaucracy in order to "prevent crime." Let's not think about a person's freedom, because in the end, less crime is the most important thing EVER. Doesn't it go something like, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...well, unless there is a high crime rate, in which case, those first three things aren’t as important as a lower crime rate." Must have missed that sentence in the declaration of Independence.
 
I imagine that , just like that town in Georgia that did this many uears ago, the law will not be enforced.

A good question for discussion might be;

What would you think if the Government required everyone to own a fire extinguisher?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top