Craig CO wants to "Require homes have a modern sporting rifle"

[Delfuego]

http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2013/apr/23/saving-craig-state/


Craig — Craig resident Craig Rummel appeared before the Craig City Council on Tuesday night with a unique proposal.
Citing years of attacks by the Colorado General Assembly on the industries that drive Craig and Moffat County’s economy — namely coal, power and hunting — Rummel asked City Council members to consider passing an ordinance requiring heads of households within Craig city limits to maintain a modern sporting rifle capable of accepting high-capacity magazines.
How about that! [Beer]

[lowbeyond]

I get it, but no

[Bailey Guns]

Sure, why not? Those types of proposals are always non-binding anyway. More symbolic than anything. I say go for it.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I get it, but no

Why not? It's a bold statement than anything else.

"A draft of Rummel’s proposal included exemptions for those not physically or mentally capable of operating a firearm; financially unable to afford purchasing a firearm; who have been convicted of felony; and who oppose owning a firearm for religious or other personal reasons."

[hatidua]

Why not?

We're either for government intrusion, or we're not. I don't think there's much consistency in supporting the intrusion when it's something I like, but being against intrusion when the proposal runs counter to my beliefs.

[CroiDhubh]

Going to agree, hatidua. I like it, but it's the same as saying you can't have one.

[GoldFinger]

Good quote:
“The state of Colorado is the laughingstock of the country,” Jones said. “We’ve passed an amendment legalizing marijuana that violates federal law and we’ve passed gun laws that violate the Second Amendment. I don’t think passing an ordinance requiring all residents to own an AK-47 is the type of attention Craig wants.”

[Bailey Guns]

Going to agree, hatidua. I like it, but it's the same as saying you can't have one.

No, it isn't. If the gov bans you from having or possessing it, you can't have it, and there are penalties for having one. If they say you must have one but not really for a variety of reasons, you don't have to have one and there's no penalty for it.

I understand the sentiment against passing symbolic laws you really aren't going to enforce, but it's not like it's costing anything. Again...it's just a statement.

[Bailey Guns]

Good quote:
“We’ve passed an amendment legalizing marijuana that violates federal law and we’ve passed gun laws that violate the Second Amendment. I don’t think passing an ordinance requiring all residents to own an AK-47 is the type of attention Craig wants.”

The first sentence is ok. But the second is not. It's reactionary. No where does it state you must have an AK-47. He's using that particular gun to elicit a visceral, emotional response so others will oppose it.

[brianakell]

The first sentence is ok. But the second is not. It's reactionary. No where does it state you must have an AK-47. He's using that particular gun to elicit a visceral, emotional response so others will oppose it.

Agreed, its there for shock value. He grabbed the most evil gun in history. ak47's are more evil than ar15's. Always have been. The ar15 is the diet coke of evil. [LOL]

[johngraves2]

Wife's parents still live in craig, looks like we get to go shopping!

[Dave]

Agreed, its there for shock value. He grabbed the most evil gun in history. ak47's are more evil than ar15's. Always have been. The ar15 is the diet coke of evil. [LOL]
Just one calorie, not even enough.

I like the idea of an armed citizen, but I don't want a gov't mandate that says everyone must own one, even if you don't like them. No matter how un-enforceable it is.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

No, it isn't. If the gov bans you from having or possessing it, you can't have it, and there are penalties for having one. If they say you must have one but not really for a variety of reasons, you don't have to have one and there's no penalty for it.

I understand the sentiment against passing symbolic laws you really aren't going to enforce, but it's not like it's costing anything. Again...it's just a statement.

The PPACA is this nation's new precedent in "The law tells you what you must buy."
Much as in your example....
They say you must have it.
But not really for a variety of reasons. (Look at the exemptions passed out year one)
And there's no penalty for it. Except a tax. Now we penalize with a tax.


The precedent for this is out there. The door on the government not being able to tell you what you must buy has been kicked wide open.

[lowbeyond]

Why not? It's a bold statement than anything else.

"A draft of Rummel’s proposal included exemptions for those not physically or mentally capable of operating a firearm; financially unable to afford purchasing a firearm; who have been convicted of felony; and who oppose owning a firearm for religious or other personal reasons."

Why should the state dictate to you what you must own/do ?

What if the proposal was, you shall give $100 to MAIG ? That ok too ?

[RiderGeek]

...The precedent for this is out there. The door on the government not being able to tell you what you must buy has been kicked wide open.

Right or wrong, for better or worse, the precedent for this goes all the way back to the time of our nation's founding.
How about 1792? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

In 1903 the "free" and "white" part of the above was functionally amended away in another militia act, in addition to other things. What's more, not only does this conscription require men to provide for themselves a standard, basic armament of the time, it goes a step further in requiring them to invest their time in training, and ultimately, to put their lives on the line when their state or their nation calls them to service. Compared to trivial material things, I would think you all would be most alarmed by a provision like that!

The proposed rule in Craig reinforces the idea, albeit at a local level, the MSR is the modern musket.

[RiderGeek]

I absolutely agree 100%, far too much cruft in the books.

[Bailey Guns]

What if the proposal was, you shall give $100 to MAIG ? That ok too ?

That analogy doesn't work. Not the same.


Though useless regs don't necessarily cost anything to write or pass, they do cost us something. Anyone trying to have a good handle on their laws or regulations that they are legitimately subject to must navigate the bullshit of things that will never be enforced, and try to understand regulations that matter - and they will cite/prosecute you for - and regulations that are "feel good" and would never be enforced no matter what the "violation". Basically, it makes it very difficult for people to be responsible, law abiding citizens. Just like complicating the tax code.... same effect. We live in a society where there are no law abiding citizens because our regulations and laws are so inefficient to the point of contradictions in some cases where it's physically impossible for someone to be in compliance with everything, at any given time.

Which was a concern of the FF's I believe, and a big motivator behind the 4th...

If they wanted to pass it like the militia clause, AND ENFORCE IT, I have no problem with it. But it's already enough of a bitch to go through city regs, CRS, etc.

OK, in general, I'll buy that explanation. But in this case I'd be in favor of the pro-2A statement they're trying to make over any minimal increase in bureaucracy problems it causes the residents of Craig (if I were a resident of Craig). On the other hand, if the residents of Craig are OK with it, who are we to say they shouldn't have it?