Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
While it is perfectly sound Constitutionally, I think forcing one to buy a gun against his or her will is wrong. Freedom is not forced; that is a contradiction in terms. However, I also realize that South Dakota is sovereign, and that its legislature can mandate what they want as long as it is not prohibited by article 1 sect 10 of the Constitution or their State Constitution; furthermore, I realize that SD’s citizens can vote with their feet and leave. Freedom is just that- freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
Isn't forcing people to purchase guns exactly like forcing them to purchase healthcare? I guess I'm not seeing the constitutional part in this... Feel free to enlighten
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
TippinTaco said:
Isn't forcing people to purchase guns exactly like forcing them to purchase healthcare? I guess I'm not seeing the constitutional part in this... Feel free to enlighten
If you are speaking Constitutionally, the 10th Amendment is a prohibition on the federal government. Since that power is not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, is is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I'm pretty sure Kennesaw's ordinance 34-21 hasn't been found to be unconstitutional.

Kennesaw's ordinance is a well-written example, as it does not require one to purchase a firearm, only to maintain one. :righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
'm pretty sure Kennesaw's ordinance 34-21 hasn't been found to be unconstitutional.

Kennesaw's ordinance is a well-written example, as it does not require one to purchase a firearm, only to maintain one. :righton:[/quote]
A little Devil's Advocate:

The ordinance presupposes the head of house is a gun owner. If he is not, then logically, he would have to purchase a gun before he could maintain one. Afterall, one cannot maintain what he does not own. In Georgia, as I'm sure you're aware, the State controls who may purchase a firearm.

The relevant code section 16-11-173 states:
(2)(b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

If there is caselaw upholding the Constitutionallity of this ordinance, I will gladly concede this point; I would love to read it. But it seems the logic of this ordinance contradicts Georgia law.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
Disagreed :p 8) (* all in good fun)

Could inherit a firearm
Could construct a firearm
Could be gifted a firearm
Could be loaned a firearm

.. none of the above require spending a single penny.

Oh, and last summer I maintained my neighbor's lawn while he was away on 4wks vacation, da lucky barstid. I never laid claim to ownership of it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Fallschirmjäger said:
Disagreed :p 8) (* all in good fun)

Could inherit a firearm
Could construct a firearm
Could be gifted a firearm
Could be loaned a firearm

.. none of the above require spending a single penny.

Oh, and last summer I maintained my neighbor's lawn while he was away on 4wks vacation, da lucky barstid. I never laid claim to ownership of it though.
Interesting point. I'll concede that it is possible to maintain a firearm w/o a purchase :mrgreen: ... and as for your neighbor, sign me up for four weeks of vacation! :lol:
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
Since it hasn't been through the courts; I can't say how valid the city ordinance is. All I can say is that if I were the city attorney retained, that's the "theory of the case" that I'd be presenting.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top