Proposed Ordinance in Idaho Town -- Requires Each House Have A Gun

[JohnKelly]

http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5437033

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.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SammyIamToday]

I don't like the idea. I think everyone should own a firearm, don't get me wrong, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do something that they don't want to do.

This is no different than antis telling us they hate guns so we shouldn't have them. People should have the right to be unarmed and silly, just as I should (and thankfully do) have the right to be armed and aware.

[ccw9mm]

I'd love it if all citizens would, of their own accord, get trained (military, academies, otherwise), carry, stock the home, and so on. But I don't see that government intrusion, here, is justified to force folks to do what the government thinks is best. Firearms ownership and usage is a very personal decision.

The simple reality is that someone's not paying attention if he/she isn't already armed based on actual police response times, practically no matter where one lives. It's just not possible for LEO's to be everywhere at once, to protect everyone from on-the-instant attacks or emergencies. Forget about earth-shattering situations like the Katrina hurricane or other disasters. On that basis alone, folks should be prepared to protect themselves ... not based on some half-baked, intrusive demand by the government.

[mzmtg]

It's a stupid law that the citizens in the jurisdiction don't need cluttering up their books.

Don't restrict gun ownership by remaining quiet on the issue and leave it at that. I can't stand grandstanding by politicians on either side of any issue.

[Sheldon J]

Been done N Mortion Grove Ill, about 20 years ago, and yes it is Grandstanding.

[mzmtg]

Been done N Mortion Grove Ill, about 20 years ago, and yes it is Grandstanding.

Kennesaw, GA has the same thing. It's pointless.

[AirForceShooter]

in a town like that I'm willing to bet 98% of all households already have at least one gun.

AFS

[kastiron]

+1 Grandstanding and pointless.

[pogo2]

It was pointed out in the article that Kennesaw, Georgia passed such a law years ago. There was also a small town named Virgin, Utah that passed this law. It is my understanding that any household that does not have a gun is not prosecuted for this - it is more of a voluntary thing. The law represents a symbolic statement by the town regarding gun ownership.

Given that the law is only a recommendation and not a mandate, I am in favor of it. I believe that gun ownership in the home is a good thing, and tends to deter criminals from breaking into homes. Symbolic statements are useful when the cause is worthwhile - and I believe that this cause is worthwhile.

[tj1231]

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/s...s.2f0f202.html


I saw this on the local news this morning. I'm not for or against it personally, but I found the following comments interesting(he is a preacher though). Just for clarification, they aren't forcing gun ownership, just recommending it.


"I'm not going to support that. I think that is falling into that culture of fear, and I'm not going to support that. I'm not going to encourage it. I think that's stepping over a line. It's where we don't need to go," said Weinacht.

Weinacht isn't opposed to owning a gun. He has a few himself but says the city has no business encouraging the use of firearms under any circumstance.

"If we would invest as much time into thinking about creative non-violent responses to violence as we did violent responses, we'd probably gain some ground," said Weinacht

[Sheldon J]

Kennesaw, GA has the same thing. It's pointless.

Sorry you are right Morton Grove is the place that did just the opposite. My old memory Bad.

[INTJ]

I believe its a very good idea, makes a pro statement for gun ownership if nothing else. Psychologically I am not much of a grey area fan anyway. I pretty much see the world as black and white(right/wrong, yes/no, for/against, armed/unarmed, etc..)

[Whirlwind06]

Kind of a cool idea.
But I think compulsory gun ownership is just as bad as compulsory gun confiscation. Forcing somebody to own a firearm that they won't train with and / store safely could cause problems too.

[ibex]

It is a right, not an obligation.

[pogo2]

"Weinacht isn't opposed to owning a gun. He has a few himself but says the city has no business encouraging the use of firearms under any circumstance."

"If we would invest as much time into thinking about creative non-violent responses to violence as we did violent responses, we'd probably gain some ground," said Weinacht

Weinacht says here that encouraging ownership of a gun in the home is a "violent response". But the experience of Kennesaw, Georgia was that encouraging gun ownership reduced crime, and hence reduced violence. I realize that this is "counter intuitive", but it is logical that criminals are deterred from violent crime by the threat that their victims are armed. Often the victims don't have to use the gun, as the threat is enough to deter the criminal. I suspect that all those Kennesaw criminals went over to Atlanta to do their crimes, given the increase in that city's violent crime rate.

It's like the title of John Lott's famous book - "More guns, less crime". But liberals aren't smart enough to understand it.