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

[Delfuego]

http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/...g-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!

[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.

[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 ?

[CroiDhubh]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.