Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

This is a discussion on Head of Household MUST own a gun!!! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; A thread was started about the possibility of this becoming law.... Well, last night about midnight the law passed. Here's an article about it. That's ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

  1. #1
    Member Array usmc0311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    52

    Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

    A thread was started about the possibility of this becoming law.... Well, last night about midnight the law passed.

    Here's an article about it.


    That's a step in the right direction. I grew up in Kennesaw,GA where a similar law has been in place for years and the town has a really low crime rate. Now if we could just get NY, Chicago, CA etc. to follow suit I'm sure we would see a turn around in those places.
    84160, IBGoodToGo and GunGeezer like this.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    2,630
    Where's the article?
    Regards,
    Jim
    NRA Life Member
    Charter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society
    He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,492
    No article posted: you forgot the link!

    Semper Fi!
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  4. #4
    Member Array usmc0311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    52
    84160 and darbo like this.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. #5
    Member Array Moby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dallas, Don't mess with Texas!
    Posts
    109
    While I'm obviously pro 2A
    I'm anti "you must" laws from the government regarding what I must purchase.
    Like Obamacare.
    Shall not be infringed should not mean do it or else.
    Even though I'm sure there is no enforcement.
    Psalm 144:1
    Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.

    Romans 13:4
    But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,838
    IMHO, it's just another piece of legislation that addresses an absence of common sense. You can't legislate the obvious any more than you can legislate morality. Helmet laws are a fine example. Why should we be mandated to do something when the only victim is the law-breaker? Yet isn't it interesting that the higher the ethical, moral and/or religious standards which the members of a society individually hold themselves, the fewer laws...they need? More laws aren't EVER the answer. All they serves to accomplish is to confuse matters of law with the clear direction of an internal moral compass. For example, I don't cheat on my taxes. But the ever-growing volumes of tax code legislation makes it increasingly difficult (and expensive) to assure I'm following the rules. And enforcement can only mean registration, how else are they gonna' know?
    sauerpuss likes this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Unenforceable law,you can't force anybody to own a firearm.IMHO I am more for local LEO's Sheriffs that are advising their Citizens to get a firearm and the training to use it because they know that it's the best defense
    mprp and tclance like this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  8. #8
    Member Array MJClark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    344

    Thow Shall Own a Gun - Nelson GA

    Link

    Although I am all for gun ownership, I don't like a government telling anyone that they are required to own a gun.

    What are your thoughts?

  9. #9
    Member Array IBGoodToGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Wet WA
    Posts
    255
    The law isn't 'serious' about forcing anyone whom doesn't want to for whatever reasons. Its kind of thumbing the nose at WA.
    darbo likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,178
    I'm not saying this is right, but look at it this way.

    The local government can tell you must have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. Depending on the type/size of your building, they can tell you you must install a sprinkler system for fire prevention. They will make you buy and install water meters. They will require your house to be structurally stable. They will tell you what you can or cannot own on your property based on its zoning. If it is commercial, you probably can't have a pig farm. If it is residential, you probably can't build an assembly line factory. They have big checklists that you will be required to fulfill each and every requirement just to build something on your property. They will inspect it to make sure you are doing it properly, or you will be shut down. Not to mention you must apply for and purchase permits to do just about anything on your property.

    ...But you don't think they can tell you that you must have a firearm to be the head of a household in their municipality? I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying they are already requiring vast amounts of things from you. To say they can't force commerce... you are wrong. They are very good at it, already.

  11. #11
    Member Array CJ_mp40c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    194
    Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    Old news. From the Militia Act of 1792:

    "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

    Personally, I think we should reinstate this act and update the equipment requirements.
    Curzyk and sauerpuss like this.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    IMHO, it's just another piece of legislation that addresses an absence of common sense. You can't legislate the obvious any more than you can legislate morality. Helmet laws are a fine example. Why should we be mandated to do something when the only victim is the law-breaker? Yet isn't it interesting that the higher the ethical, moral and/or religious standards which the members of a society individually hold themselves, the fewer laws...they need? More laws aren't EVER the answer. All they serves to accomplish is to confuse matters of law with the clear direction of an internal moral compass. For example, I don't cheat on my taxes. But the ever-growing volumes of tax code legislation makes it increasingly difficult (and expensive) to assure I'm following the rules. And enforcement can only mean registration, how else are they gonna' know?
    Iowa is one of few states that does not require adult bike (motorcycle) drivers to wear helmets. However, The cost for surviving TBI is steep... and many who ride bikes cannot pay those costs... and then, the rest of us pay for their recovery.... Because hospitals are required to give a modicum of care, even if you ain't got jack. That's one of the "reasons" behind helmet laws...

    We talk alla time about entitlements... now, that's an entitlement.... play stupid games, get hurt, somebody else pays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ_mp40c View Post
    Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.
    Building codes in private residences protect others from dangerous situations? How? You wanna visit my house, my homeowner's insurance will pay if you get injured... if my home is a shack... and looks dangerous to go into, you have a choice... If you don't wanna come in, fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by NH_Esau View Post
    Old news. From the Militia Act of 1792:

    "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

    Personally, I think we should reinstate this act and update the equipment requirements.
    I haven't been enrolled and notified, doesn't apply to me.
    I'm a conscientious objector, does not apply to me.
    I'm a woman, doesn't apply to me.
    I am free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness; does not apply to me.
    I am a paraplegic, does not apply to me.
    I am black, doesn't apply to me.

    And, if you got Congress to reinstate the act, they would not UPDATE the requirements, and we would be considered "covered" under the 2nd Amendment. "There, boys, go have your little "revolution against tyranny, now!" I'll take a pass, thanks.
    steffen likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,568
    Already running here: http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...t-own-gun.html

    Merging threads.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by CJ_mp40c View Post
    Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.
    I'll continue to play devils advocate.
    ...You don't think that that is the very purpose of this law? For the head of a household to protect it from dangerous situations? Could it not be argued that this town is simply "regulating militia"? Ensuring that it has adequate protection in a time of crisis?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

alabama head of household guns

,

have to carry a firearm as head of household

,

head of household gun laws

,

must own gun laws

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors