Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM]

     Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
statute?  Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per
square foot.  Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for
not owning a gun.

     While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen
to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.  Also, given their
views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)

Thanks!

-p

"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759


Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cyberpass.net on 11/05/2000 04:32:13 PM

Please respond to Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:  Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...



At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html
>
>
>
>                   Utah town requires all households to own gun
>
>                   November 5, 2000
>                   Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT)
>
>                   VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town
>has enacted an ordinance
>                   requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for
>residents' self-defense.
>
>                   Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own
>firearms, so the initiative has lots of
>                   support, Mayor Jay Lee said.
>
>                   Residents had expressed fear that their Second
>Amendment right to bear arms
>                   was under fire, so the town council modeled a
>similar measure passed by a
>                   Georgia city about 12 years ago.
>
>                   The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious
>objectors and people who
>                   cannot afford to own a gun are exempt.

This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or
Illinois, as I recall.

t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns.

The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't
have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious
objections to having a gun in my house.

Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a
television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush.

Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as
they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a  gun is just as foolish
as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need
killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns
need killing.


--Tim May

--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.