1911Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
Not everyone thinks the ordinance is a good idea. Sumner County Sheriff Gerald Gilkey says the ordinance makes him concerned for the safety of his offices when responding to calls, especially those involving domestic violence. The town's city attorney plans to ask the council to reverse itself on the issue.
typical... even in the mid-west. makes me want to puke.

Oh no, don't let civilians have weapons! They might use them against our officers.

My advice... don't do anything wrong and you won't have to worry about people with firearms... kind of like the Founding Fathers planned, huh?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
nw_fan said:
My advice... don't do anything wrong and you won't have to worry about people with firearms... kind of like the Founding Fathers planned, huh?
I don't think it is that simple. Besides, most people don't quite make the connection between the second amendment and it's role in keeping the government honest. And there is a real concern on domestic calls about weapons and whether the combatants are going to turn on the cops when they arrive.

I don't agree entirely with requiring a gun in every household.

That said, officers should continue to be trained as if they may always encounter a gun and people should not be disarmed or restricted on carry (except in a police station or other govt facility) for officer safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
I don't agree entirely either. There are folks who should not choose to own a firearm as they are incompetent.

However, when you read a 3 paragraph story about a small town with no police force making a rule that you be able to defend yourself, and one whole paragraph is devoted to the sherriff worried about whether his officers will be threatened by it, it raises a red flag. Those same officers could be hit in the head with a pipe or bitten by a dog while responding to a call, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
A good trend is coming...

When Kennesaw passed their ordinance, the ACLU sued them for a change in language. Since then, objectors and certain others are not bound by the law. According to the Marrietta Daily Journal- quoting a Kennesaw official- crime dropped 89 percent. Chicago and Morton Grove, Illinois both banned guns and their crime rates increased. I lived in both states.
Remember that the constitution doesn't read "the right of marksmen" or "the right of people we trust and like", it reads "the right of the people". The word 'people' there has been interpreted by federal courts to apply to 'individuals' instead of the police or military. The State Of Indiana Constitution reads "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State". Neither the U.S. nor the State Of Indiana's Constitution provide for a means of self-defense but only reaffirm a God-given one: "...whoever has no sword shall sell his coat and buy one" Luke 22:36.

This is an excerpt of an e-mail I sent to our Mayor-elect, Sheriff, PD Chief, Asst. Chief, among others, with the CNN Story attached.

Loving Indiana, Missing Georgia,
Garry

"Old times there are not fogotten. Look away, look away, look away, Dixieland." -Elvis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
There is also something to be said for not passing a law that you do not expect to be followed and enforced. Diminishes the respect/power of law in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Good point

Notwithstanding, critics all across the contry, at that time, said that Kennesaw would 'look like the 'Wild West'" and "the streets will flow with blood".
The people felt empowered and unabashed, free from the stigma attached to gun-toting in the rest of the country.

The whole of Cobb County looked like the 'wild west' to be sure, but the only blood that flowed from two murders in Kennesaw for several years to follow was from the edges of knives not the barrells of guns.


Garry
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
nw_fan said:
I don't agree entirely either. There are folks who should not choose to own a firearm as they are incompetent.

However, when you read a 3 paragraph story about a small town with no police force making a rule that you be able to defend yourself, and one whole paragraph is devoted to the sherriff worried about whether his officers will be threatened by it, it raises a red flag. Those same officers could be hit in the head with a pipe or bitten by a dog while responding to a call, too.
I can agree with all of that.

JAMES
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Oh, and...

nw_fan said:
Those same officers could be hit in the head with a pipe or bitten by a dog while responding to a call, too.
Agreed.

I quote a Valparaiso Police Officer during a recent session of the Citizen's Police Academy that they offer:

"I almost want to laugh to myself when we're enroute to a domestic disturbance and the dispatcher says that there are no weapons in the house. Anyone here own a butcher block kitchen knife set or a baseball bat?"

Shall we restrict ownership of the Ginsu and the Louisville Slugger?

Playing Devil's advocate,
Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Reply to DHM

DHM,

In reference to paragraph 1: Dispatchers ask a 911 domestic disturbance caller if there are any weapons in the house. The cop's point is that it's almost a stupid question.

Paragraph 2: I understand about being required to KABA. AND prosecutors aren't hauling the local anti-gun liberals into court any more than they are sidewalk spitters. As for the messages, if 9/11 should have taught us anything, it should have occurred to us when we learned that victims were dialing 911 from the rubble that we cannot soley rely on the police to protect us. We are to some extent helpless.
(My local PD acknowledges that the majority of 911 calls come after the fact and they are relegated to an investigation rather than a prevention of a crime. Ask any woman who has been raped which she would prefer: investigation or prevention?)

The message to outsiders that the city is uninviting to criminals is the kind of message that I want all evil-doers to hear about my community.
That brings to mind my bosses disgust for the heavy police patrols of the 20mph school zones in my city. "Those Valpo Cops are all over those school zones." "Yes," I replied "and so are my children."

Paragraph 3: You are correct, Sir. Virgin, Utah. Do a web search and you'll find something about it.

Thanks for a challenging objection. I always enjoy reading your lucid and intelligent posts.

Respectfully, Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
ther is more to this story than the small blurb read here.
the actual law gave enough loopholes for those who do not want to own to not fear any fine.
the truth to the story is that the local folks wanted it to be publicised that the were an armed township as a deterrent.
blessings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I think it is absurd that the Sherrif would object. It would seem to be good policy to treat all calls as if the perp were armed. This way the Sherrif would not have to guess and would not become complacent. He would know that the perp were armed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
nw_fan said:
I don't agree entirely either. There are folks who should not choose to own a firearm as they are incompetent.

However, when you read a 3 paragraph story about a small town with no police force making a rule that you be able to defend yourself, and one whole paragraph is devoted to the sherriff worried about whether his officers will be threatened by it, it raises a red flag. Those same officers could be hit in the head with a pipe or bitten by a dog while responding to a call, too.
There is an important point here being missed and it is missed by many folks. This town is a classic example. Owning guns does not mean one can defend oneself. This is a classic flaw of reasoning. Yes, a gun is dangerous and yes a gun can be used for defense and one cannot defend onself with a gun if one does not have a gun in possession to use, but a gun is not the only form of defense, assuming a person knows how to use it and can do so in the time and with the skill required for the task. Note that they are not requiring any training on gun handling or self defense with firearms. Note that they don't require homes to have locks on doors.

If the requirement was that people be able to defend themselves, then the city should be providing the gear or training mandated. They should also be having more than one option for defense. Why can't people learn a oriental martial art? How about a Louisville Slugger?

It is not constitutional any more than disallowing guns is.

Just because one owns a hammer does not mean one can frame a house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
They call me Bruce

Why can't people learn a oriental martial art? How about a Louisville Slugger?

It is not constitutional any more than disallowing guns is.

Just because one owns a hammer does not mean one can frame a house. [/B]

Yeah. My older brother has multiple levels of tae kwon do black belt and I broke his nose with a good, old-fashioned, American punch in the face.
These days, we both carry the Springfield 1911 and haven't layed hands on one another for years.
Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
This ordance was, if i remember correctly, modeled after a like ordanace of a town i georgia. If my memory serves me correctly, they sent a note to the mayor of san francisco asking for them to send all the handguns they took up from citizens to them for distribution to their folks. least that was what i read.
blessings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Double Naught Spy said:
It is not constitutional any more than disallowing guns is.
Under what amendment is it unconstitutional to require ownership of a weapon? I think you are wrong.

At the same time I believe its a stupid law.

If they are going to require ownership of weapons they should certainly have a town muster yard where they are required to train and practice with their weapons
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
Mus said:
Under what amendment is it unconstitutional to require ownership of a weapon? I think you are wrong.
I can easily see the ninth and tenth covering your right to choose not to own a gun. I don't recall the power to require an individual to keep a firearm being delegated to the federal government. Furthermore, I'd bet that the 4th would prevent the enforcement of the law.

But I guess by some stretch of the imagination, this could fall under Article I section 8 of the actual Constitution

'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States'

I would have never expected the constitution argument being turned around to require people to be armed...wouldn't that be interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
James said:
I can easily see the ninth and tenth covering your right to choose not to own a gun. I don't recall the power to require an individual to keep a firearm being delegated to the federal government. Furthermore, I'd bet that the 4th would prevent the enforcement of the law.

But I guess by some stretch of the imagination, this could fall under Article I section 8 of the actual Constitution
The latter part is exactly my thinking, at least on a federal level. Then of course most State constitutions provide some power of organizing or levying militia troops as well.

I would be hard pressed to call it unconstitutional to mandate ownership and drill with a weapon for a citizen and then turn around and say it was constitutional to draft the same person to fight in the army. I think they are both perfectly legal and constitutional.

I dont think it would require searching anyone for enforcement of a law I would support. It would be obvious who was in violation if they showed up for training without a weapon and ammunition.

I do agree without training its useless. A ridiculous law just made for political lip service.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top