Colorado town considers requiring assault-style weapons in every home

[RobertNashville]

The city council of Craig, Colo., a small mountain town that relies on hunting for much of its economic activity, is seriously pondering a citizen’s proposal to mandate that every household have at least one sporting rifle equipped to hold a high-capacity magazine.

Town leaders said such a law would be practically impossible to enforce, but resident Craig Rummel, who floated the idea at a recent council meeting, said the point would be to send a message to the state legislature, which he said was “hammering” rural towns with new rules on gun ownership, energy policy and other issues.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/25/colorado-town-considers-requiring-assault-style-weapons-in-every-home/#ixzz2RZpiaZna

 

 

[RobertNashville]

While this may have some political pluses, personally I think it would be more useful and practical if every household was required to have a modern handgun and/or shotgun for home defense and then offer basic and intermediate classes (and age appropriate) classes at reasonable rates...that's a "government program" that might actually do some real good and honor 2A rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good article. It points out the Colorado hypocrisy, quite well.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All it is is push back against the tyranny of a weak minded Colorado electorate. More of this will happen,

and I can't wait.

[Erik88]

While I appreciate the point they are trying to make I don't agree with it.

 

Forcing someone to have a gun in the home is no different than forcing them to buy healtcare.

[mikegideon]

While I appreciate the point they are trying to make I don't agree with it.

 

Forcing someone to have a gun in the home is no different than forcing them to buy healtcare.

 

You're right, except it doesn't sound like there's a plan to enforce it. It's just a statement. May stop some liberal immigrants from landing in their town. That's not a bad thing.

[TNMTBik3r]

I've been to Craig a few years back, nice town. Work is actually asking me to move to Colorado (Denver area) which was a dream a year ago, but I told them no in light of the recent legislation.

I like the idea of recommending all homes contain a self defense weapon but it should not be enforced.

[mikegideon]

Not a fan of Denver. High desert with high housing prices. My company tried to get me to move there years ago, and I passed.

[JAB]

I think all the existing and proposed ordinances 'requiring' a firearm of one type or another in every home have their hearts in the right place.  I can't say that I would agree with truly requiring every head of household to buy/own a firearm (even apart from the fact that some are probably felons and cannot, legally, do so.)  I also realize that most of these ordinances are seen as 'unenforceable' and that they will not, in fact, be enforced.  That is why I am not so sure how 'good' a thing they are.  We already have so many convoluted, outdated or unenforced 'laws' - on a Federal, State and Local level - in this country that our law books are a mish-mosh of legalese to the point that the average person can't fully understand them all much less comply with them.  Do we really need more unenforceable, 'feel good' laws?  Isn't the fact that they are largely 'unenforceable, feel good' laws at least part of the reason gun control laws won't do anything to prevent crime?

 

Instead of basically useless, "Everyone has to own one," laws, I'd rather see:

 

1.  In areas where local law enforcement are provided with firearms by their departments, pass an ordinance making it mandatory for any departmental firearms which are being phased out/replaced/retired from duty and which are still in sound, working condition must be offered for sale to local residents at a price of no more than $100 before those weapons can be sold or disposed of in any, other manner.  To purchase these items, a local resident would get his/her name on a list.  There would be a deadline for getting on the list.  At the time of the deadline, any local resident whose name is on the list and who has not previously taken advantage of the program will have an opportunity to buy one of the weapons, first, in the order that their names appear on the list  Once all residents who have not previously taken advantage of the program have purchased weapons, any remaining weapons will be sold to residents whose names are on the list and who have previously purchased weapons through the program.  At the end of each of these sales, any remaining firearms could then be sold at fair, market value to a gun dealer or used as 'trade ins' for the new weapons the agency is acquiring.

 

2.  Pass an ordinance stating that, as a one-time offer (and the resident can choose the purchase on which he/she takes advantage of the offer) when a local resident purchases a firearm at retail price, he/she will be able to deduct the amount of the firearm purchase from his or her property taxes or something similar.

 

3.  Where possible, pass ordinances establishling training courses - from beginner to advanced - to be taught by qualified local law enforcement officers and open to any and all local residents of age 18 or older.

 

Those are just a few examples of things I think would be better ways of promoting firearms ownership and/or taking a stand against anti-gun laws.  I am sure there are many other possibilities.

Edited April 26, 2013 by JAB

[macville]

Guys, if the federal government can force us to buy insurance, why can't we force people to buy firearms for their own safety? Not saying we should, but hey it's just "liberal" logic.

[Mike.357]

instead of passing more laws legislators need to work on repealing laws.

[S&WForty]

Would this local law take precedence over the state's law banning high cap mags? Kinda like a permission slip to let the town's citizens ignore the state law?