Dear Nucla, Colorado: Mandatory gun ownership is still a bad idea

posted at 9:31 am on June 8, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

This was an ill conceived plan the first time I heard of it, and it’s gotten no better with time. Some overly enthusiastic supporters of the Second Amendment in the town of Nucla, Colorado have taken their support of a sacred freedom for Americans and shoved it a bit over the line. The town has passed a law requiring every head of household to own a firearm.

Guns have put Nucla in the national Second Amendment spotlight since the Nucla Town Board on May 8 passed the first — and only — municipal ordinance in Colorado requiring heads of households to have guns, and ammunition, “in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the town and its inhabitants.”

In truth, guns were ingrained in the culture of this out-of-the-way western Colorado town before the current gun-rights movement and before anyone had dreamed up what is being called the Family Protection Order. A visitor is hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t already own guns — many guns — before the ordinance passed.

Only one member of the town board voted against the measure, but he’s not some sort of gun grabbing, Left wing firearms prohibitionist. In fact, if you read his response in the article, he makes a lot of sense. He just doesn’t want any more government regulations, including those at the town level.

But that’s not the only reason to oppose this sort of law. Charles Cooke outlines another important principle on this topic at The Corner.

The idea that there should be no difference between what one likes and what one thinks should be mandated is extraordinarily destructive to liberty — especially in today’s world, in which appeals to “public health” and “public safety” are routinely used to trump the freedom of the individual. Is this really the road that we want to start going down? A reminder: Obamacare’s individual mandate is a terrible idea because it forces people to buy a product that they might not want, not because it operates in service of a bad policy. The moment that we forget this on the Right, we will start a mandate war, in which we are not objecting to mandates on principle but objecting to them in practice. Then, whichever party is in power will use its authority to force people to conform. That way lies disaster.

The mandate argument is important, but it’s a bit more wonky than what lies beneath. When I hear this sort of discussion taking place, the more important – and basic – word which comes to mind is freedom. We have a number of freedoms which we hold near and dear, requiring permanent vigilance to ensure the government doesn’t mince them up too much under cover of protecting us from ourselves. But it’s equally important to remember that every freedom has two sides to it. You have the freedom of speech, but that also means that you are free to remain silent when you choose. You have the freedom to worship as you see fit, but it does not carry with it an implied requirement to attend church. And you have the freedom to keep and bear arms, but nowhere does it say that you must.

The closest I’ve seen to a valid argument in support of mandatory gun ownership as a constitutional principle is the example of state governments mandating automobile insurance to make sure everyone is protected and set up to some degree against liability. But that comparison fails on two points in my opinion. First, it was the same argument which was used to claim that the individual mandate in Obamacare was legal. I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now. But more to the point, even the state laws which require auto insurance almost universally provide a back door out of the requirement. (You can generally post an interest bearing bond in the amount of the minimum liability coverage to be used to pay someone if you are found at fault.)

The town makes a great case in arguing for gun ownership with the goal of lowering crime rates and protecting the general welfare. But they should also remember the need for personal responsibility and the right of refusal. The residents will – hopefully – always be free to purchase a firearm should they wish, but it’s not the place of the government at any level to force them.

EDIT: (Jazz) The original title of this article spelled the name of Nucla incorrectly.

UPDATE 1: Fascinating information provided by unclesmrgol in the comments providing some historical reference I was unaware of. “An Act more effectually to Provide for the National Defense by establishing a Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. In part:

Militia

Of course, that goes to the question of whether this would pass constitutional muster, which clearly sounded dubious to me. (We were originally focusing instead on the idea of rights vs. obligations and the wisdom of government mandates.) But this puts a twist on it. This might stand up in court after all, even if it’s still a very questionable idea. Would love to see any challenges to related legislation over time which made it to the SCOTUS. But still worth reading. Thanks!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

These things are symbolic and you know it.

Tard on June 8, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Kennesaw

Bmore on June 8, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Get john roberts to declare it a tax then it wont be a mandate

jaywemm on June 8, 2014 at 9:35 AM

These things are symbolic and you know it.

Tard on June 8, 2014 at 9:33 AM

But the symbolism is lost on the people who need to be convinced.

rhombus on June 8, 2014 at 9:37 AM

The town makes a great case in arguing for gun ownership with the goal of lowering crime rates and protecting the general welfare. But they should also remember the need for personal responsibility and the right of refusal….

I see your point Jazz.

BTW…Does this right of refusal apply to Mandatory Immunizations?

Cause given the current growing border minor crisis and Moonbat Liberals who refuse to vaccinate…Incoming 3rd world diseases is a big problemo we all get to look forward to…

“A brave news report by Phoenix station ABC-15 says that the Obama administration is dumping contagious disease carrying illegal aliens all across the country.

Reporter Navideh Forghani reported on Friday from the border town McAllen, Texas that illegal aliens are being found with scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, and other contagious viruses. All that separates the quarantined in border detention centers from the seemingly healthy is a swatch of yellow plastic tape according to Forghani. After processing by ICE , illegal aliens are being dumped by the Obama administration on states across the country, but mainly Arizona….”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-obama-is-dumping-contagious-disease-exposed-illegal-aliens-across-us/

Just wondering what your opinion would be on that…

workingclass artist on June 8, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Dear Nuncla, Colorado: Mandatory gun ownership is still a bad idea

No it’s not. It’s a great way of making a point about the idiocy of the individual mandate in Obamacare. It shows that two can play at that game.

I would also enact Bible, oil, and tobacco mandates to further drive the point home.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

These things are symbolic and you know it.

Tard on June 8, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Who cares? Are we supposed to make some special allowance for stupidity whenever the government is feeling poetic?

RINO in Name Only on June 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The moment that we forget this on the Right, we will start a mandate war, in which we are not objecting to mandates on principle but objecting to them in practice. Then, whichever party is in power will use its authority to force people to conform. That way lies disaster.

Refusing to do this lies an even greater disaster known as “surrender.” You can’t win a war if all you ever do is play defense.

Fight fire with fire.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Refusing to do this lies an even greater disaster known as “surrender.” You can’t win a war if all you ever do is play defense.

Fight firestatism with firestatism.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

RINO in Name Only on June 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Refusing to do this lies an even greater disaster known as “surrender.” You can’t win a war if all you ever do is play defense.

Fight firestatism with firestatism.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

RINO in Name Only on June 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Amen. Force the left onto its heels and make them start shouting about how woefully oppressed they are. And then laugh.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:53 AM

This is, of course, not unConstitutional. The first gun control law, in 1792, required every free able bodied white citizen 18 or older, and less than 45 years of age, to purchase and maintain, for the common defense, a specified type of military capable gun, to enrol in the militia, and to drill one a year. In addition to the gun, which must be a good flintlock, musket, or rifle, the person must also keep and maintain a bayonet, knapsack, 24 cartridges, two flints, and a quarter pound of powder.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394

The above was “An Act more effectually to Provide for the National Defense by establishing a Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.

It’s interesting that this city is harkening back to laws first signed by President George Washington as part of our national gun debate.

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Yes, this if pretty much the same as requiring everyone to buy health insurance whether they want/need it or not.

And I’m glad to see it. Will be more than happy to point and laugh at bleating liberals who are flummoxed with anger and outrageous outrage at the notion of them, being forced by their government, to buy something they neither want nor need – nay, that they loathe as though it were an affront to their religion.

F*ck them.

Midas on June 8, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Who cares?

I agree with that, at least. I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t a jab at the Hollywood types and Easterners that have infested Telluride, which is right down the road, to keep them from ruining Nucla, too.
Mountain-town politics in Colorado are mighty peculiar. You Eastern-types (like our esteemed Mr. Shaw) wouldn’t understand.

n0doz on June 8, 2014 at 10:00 AM

These things are symbolic and you know it.

Tard on June 8, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Bazinga!

Beat me to it.

Hucklebuck on June 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Nuncla is a tiny little berg. None of you would give a rip about it or even notice as you drove by.

This is media stupidity.

CrazyGene on June 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

In which Jazz doesn’t understand the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

The Founders considered every able body person of age to be part of the militia. Nuncla, thinking that it is necessary for the security of their city, is saying that their people has to, not only bear, but keep arms.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

The federal government can make you carry a gun. It’s called the draft. Why can’t you draft people in the war on crime locally, as well?

If you are the only one in your neighborhood who has a gun, you have an unfair burden put upon you because it’s up to you, in certain circumstances, to defend the entire neighborhood. Your neighbors selfishness in not having firearms is also a threat to you because your neighborhood is a magnet for criminals and they might hit your house forcing you to use your gun and having to live with that.

Plus, it’s going to keep Democrat-types from moving to your community. Wins all over the place.

Buddahpundit on June 8, 2014 at 10:04 AM

I’m an avid gun collector, flintlock rifle builder and NRA member. I do understand the prerogative for the People to be armed in the defense of life, family, community and country. I also believe that the law is Constitutional, but, in today’s climate, with everyone seemingly at each other’s ideological throat for one or more reasons, any law mandating the purchase of a product that should a personal choice, is wrongheaded. O’Care come to mind?

vnvet on June 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

The Founders considered every able body person of age to be part of the militia. Nuncla, thinking that it is necessary for the security of their city, is saying that their people has to, not only bear, but keep arms.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Then maybe that’s what the ordinance should have said. They could then have provided each head of household with a military grade weapon, ammunition and equipment. Talk about liberal heads exploding not to mention the BATF.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I see no difference with compulsory insurance. Gun ownership is insurance against theft and home invasion.

I enjoy reading this blogger’s POV as he was struggling whether to support Obama in 2008 in his role at The Moderate Voice.

Valiant on June 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM

The moment that we forget this on the Right, we will start a mandate war, in which we are not objecting to mandates on principle but objecting to them in practice. Then, whichever party is in power will use its authority to force people to conform. That way lies disaster.

And the disaster will be what, people voting against any politician who proposes a mandate? Sounds like my kind of disaster.

Grammar Nazi on June 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM

For those who support the idea, how would you apply it to the unemployed biker with multiple arrests for dealing meth & for beating the crap out of his wife and kids whenever the mood takes him, but who lives on the edge of town and still qualifies as a “head of family”???

Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Amen. Force the left onto its heels and make them start shouting about how woefully oppressed they are. And then laugh.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 9:53 AM

How does embracing statism “force the left onto its heels”? Do you think they’re going to say “oh no, you were right all along, big government is bad after all”? Why would you expect them to respond that way?

And what kind of kindergarten playground logic has laughing at your enemies as an actual political objective?

1. Have the political right embrace statism and battle the left over who can be the more obnoxious enemy of freedom.

2. ????

3. Liberty!

RINO in Name Only on June 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

btw, in that example, the distinction is between “arrests”, which are multiple, and “convictions”, which are zero. His associates hire expensive lawyers.

Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

For those who support the idea, how would you apply it to the unemployed biker with multiple arrests for dealing meth & for beating the crap out of his wife and kids whenever the mood takes him, but who lives on the edge of town and still qualifies as a “head of family”???

Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM

The guy you describe already has a gun.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Drag man… they already set that money aside for doobage.

viking01 on June 8, 2014 at 10:21 AM

The guy you describe already has a gun.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM

And just going by the parameters you set

btw, in that example, the distinction is between “arrests”, which are multiple, and “convictions”, which are zero. His associates hire expensive lawyers.

Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

He can own one legally.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

How does embracing statism “force the left onto its heels”? Do you think they’re going to say “oh no, you were right all along, big government is bad after all”? Why would you expect them to respond that way?

And what kind of kindergarten playground logic has laughing at your enemies as an actual political objective?

1. Have the political right embrace statism and battle the left over who can be the more obnoxious enemy of freedom.

2. ????

3. Liberty!

RINO in Name Only on June 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM

If you force the left onto its heels with these sorts of mandates, they’re not going to start hating “big government.” “Big government” is a right wing boogeyman.

Since I am not a libertarian, my objective is not liberty. I’m a social conservative, which means I primarily prize morality and virtue. Enacting capricious mandates like gun, oil, Bible, and tobacco mandates do nothing to further those ends by themselves.

What they accomplish, however, is codify into law a particular culture that the left finds abhorrent. And the force of government in enforcing cultural norms can also expunge and punish cultural deviancies. Basically, you end up conditioning liberals to be more receptive to conservatism by permeating their environment with things anathema to their world view. Required conformity with elements of conservative culture will help kill liberalism off, as they’ll no longer be able to generate outrage against things that are not simply commonplace, but that they are participants in.

For those elements of the left that don’t simply give up, what do you think their battle cry is going to be against such “oppression”? The buzzword will be “freedom,” and they’re going to have to confront the contradictions within their own philosophy.

Stoic Patriot on June 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM

To keep and bear is an inalienable right, affirmed by the Constitution.

Unspoken, is also the PRIVILEGE to not exercise ANY inalienable right.

Thus making any mandate to exercise a right unnecessary.

irongrampa on June 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I’d like to be issued a weapon. Can I choose? I’ll take an M14. Or an M1 Garand. I already have AR’s.

Arm the libs, too.

I think things would get settled quickly.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

There is that town in Georgia and doesn’t Sweden make you own a gun? I’m not big on making anyone do anything but turn about, if not fair play, can certainly be amusing given Obamacare. How do you make a gun a tax?

Cindy Munford on June 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

I support the idea. Leftists need to learn that mandating compliance as a matter of public policy means forcing yourself to buy things you don’t always want.

crrr6 on June 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

I’d like to be issued a weapon. Can I choose? I’ll take an M14. Or an M1 Garand. I already have AR’s.

Arm the libs, too.

I think things would get settled quickly.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Ill second that. I do have an M1 Garand and AR but believe the M1A/M14 to be a superior battle rifle.

jaywemm on June 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM

It’s interesting that this city is harkening back to laws first signed by President George Washington as part of our national gun debate. unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Yeah but he owned slaves.

Akzed on June 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM

When is HA going to run a thread on the “unaccompanied children” and adults who are flooding the southern border? It’s a shame when commenters have to force HA to do the right thing. I expect stupid crap like this from Jazz Shaw, but what about the rest of the authors?

bw222 on June 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Edit: The Nunclahead who wrote this article originally spelled the name of the town incorrectly.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Exactly. The citizenry is the militia and thus mandating ownership of the common military weapon of the day is constitutional. Of course there is always going to be a “freedom of conscience” exemption.

Jazz, no one is going to go to jail because they’ve refused to buy an AR-15. Unlike refusing to bake a cake for certain couples or refusing to pay for an abortion.

rbj on June 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

This is fine by me. Localities may govern how they wish.

nobar on June 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Please, the correct spelling is NUCLA

Lew in Colorado on June 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I’d like to be issued a weapon. Can I choose? I’ll take an M14. Or an M1 Garand. I already have AR’s.

Arm the libs, too.

I think things would get settled quickly.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I think I’d ask for an M2 Browning….

viking01 on June 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Cindy Munford on June 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Kennesaw.

Although the latest statistics show that there has been an increase in the crime rate over the last couple of years. Probably due to the population doubling. Crime rates there are still way below national averages.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

In which Jazz doesn’t understand the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

The Founders considered every able body person of age to be part of the militia. Nuncla, thinking that it is necessary for the security of their city, is saying that their people has to, not only bear, but keep arms.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

I’m sure you’re a spectacular attorney in real life, but isn’t it odd that the founders chose the word “right” instead of “obligation” in that case. Also, the original militia organizers frequently had to supply arms for some of the volunteers, since not everyone could afford a good rifle. It wasn’t a legal requirement anywhere in the colonies that I’ve seen. If you have citations of laws extant in the revolutionary period where any of the colonies mandated weapons ownership, please provide so I can amend this.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Yeah but he owned slaves. Akzed on June 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM

So does obama.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I’m sure you’re a spectacular attorney in real life, but isn’t it odd that the founders chose the word “right” instead of “obligation” in that case. Also, the original militia organizers frequently had to supply arms for some of the volunteers, since not everyone could afford a good rifle. It wasn’t a legal requirement anywhere in the colonies that I’ve seen. If you have citations of laws extant in the revolutionary period where any of the colonies mandated weapons ownership, please provide so I can amend this. Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Point well taken, except for the argumentum tacitum part.

Akzed on June 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM

“No, no, Ethel…. I think it points this way….

viking01 on June 8, 2014 at 10:42 AM

To keep and bear is an inalienable right, affirmed by the Constitution.

Unspoken, is also the PRIVILEGE to not exercise ANY inalienable right.

Thus making any mandate to exercise a right unnecessary.

irongrampa on June 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM

This is only true, in a world where the government isn’t already attempting to dissolve the US Constitution. The transformation of rights into privileges is well underway. The Defense of those rights, mandates the restriction of privileges over the existence of RIGHTS.

oscarwilde on June 8, 2014 at 10:44 AM

’m sure you’re a spectacular attorney in real life, but isn’t it odd that the founders chose the word “right” instead of “obligation” in that case. Also, the original militia organizers frequently had to supply arms for some of the volunteers, since not everyone could afford a good rifle. It wasn’t a legal requirement anywhere in the colonies that I’ve seen. If you have citations of laws extant in the revolutionary period where any of the colonies mandated weapons ownership, please provide so I can amend this. Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

You may well get that citation. I’ve read it here many times. Down to how much lead one needed to own.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

If you have citations of laws extant in the revolutionary period where any of the colonies mandated weapons ownership, please provide so I can amend this.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I don’t have to. unclesmrgol beat me to it:

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

There you go, Jazz. Go use that bloody edit button.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 10:51 AM

The second milita act of 1792

So yea,, they did.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Militia members, referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified,” “…shall within six months thereafter, provide himself…” 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.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:04 AM

You guys must know of Kennesaw, GA…

Gun Ownership – It’s The Law In Kennesaw

dldeskins on June 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM

I don’t think we had as many conscientious objectors back then. Plus they had to eat. They didn’t have grocery stores full of deer meat.

Everybody had guns.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:09 AM

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Fascinating. Once again you can learn something new every day here. I’d still love to see it challenged in court, though. But definitely worth the mention in an update, though.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Do you really think anyone is going to jail as a result of this symbolic law?

rjh on June 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM

When is HA going to run a thread on the “unaccompanied children” and adults who are flooding the southern border? It’s a shame when commenters have to force HA to do the right thing. I expect stupid crap like this from Jazz Shaw, but what about the rest of the authors?

bw222 on June 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

…it is very scary that the pulitburo press is ignoring what is going on there…Until it is a crisis…like they are part of the plan.

KOOLAID2 on June 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I missed yours.

Exactly.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:12 AM

The second milita act of 1792

So yea,, they did.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Does it matter that this was a conscription and the Nucla law was not? To make a fair comparison, everyone in Nucla would have to be drafted as part of this law. Needless to say, that important nugget isn’t in there.

segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Basically, the Second Milita act of 1792 said that everyone was drafted, and that they had to pay for their own weapons.

People are completely ignoring the drafting part.

segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM

basically, the Second Milita act of 1792 said that everyone was drafted, and that they had to pay for their own weapons. People are completely ignoring the drafting part. segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM.

What distinction is there if everyone is drafted?

I don’t get your point.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Hey segasagez, have you heard of Selective Services? We still have the draft, we just don’t currently use it now.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM

So don’t move to Nucla, Jazz. Non-problem solved. But the smelling salt industry thanks you for your business.

Jedditelol on June 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Sorry for the quote fail

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Hey segasagez, have you heard of Selective Services? We still have the draft, we just don’t currently use it now. BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Pretty sure I went to the post office to fill out my card.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Updated with the info from unclesmrgol. And for BigGator5, when you’re right, you’re right. Good reading.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Also, programming note for those of you asking about the Arizona immigration camp story… AP is featuring that in QoTD so it will be up all night to discuss. Ed and I decided not to do a second one on it during the day, as it would be redundant.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Over whose line, Shaw? Your line?

Who died and left you in charge of the line?

You don’t like it, don’t live there. They don’t like pansies anyway.

chuckh on June 8, 2014 at 11:34 AM

The closest I’ve seen to a valid argument in support of mandatory gun ownership

They can just argue that its a tax, not a mandate.

sharrukin on June 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

The Second Milita act of 1792 says that everyone “shall severely and respectively be enrolled in the militia”. As part of said enrollment, they have to go to training twice a year and buy their own weapons.

The law in CO states that everyone must buy weapons on general public safety groups.

I agree that this is just like Obamacare, but I disagree that it’s like the Second Militia act of 1792. The “enrolled in the militia” part is important because it provides the context of why the weapons are necessary. Likewise, they could of easily just not said that in 1792 and had a law like the one in Colorado, but they explicitly didn’t.

The 1792 act isn’t saying that everyone must have a gun. It’s saying that everyone must be in the militia(well, almost everyone), and every one in the militia must have a gun. There’s a difference.

segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I thought the government’s job was to make you purchase products now. Why is forcing people to purchase a gun a bad idea?

lorien1973 on June 8, 2014 at 11:39 AM

This is, of course, not unConstitutional.

unclesmrgol on June 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Just call it a tax and it’s cool.

lorien1973 on June 8, 2014 at 11:40 AM

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket….

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Hey segasagez, have you heard of Selective Services? We still have the draft, we just don’t currently use it now.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Which means the idea of forced military service is OK, right?

Nope, like Obamacare, that too is anti-freedom.

AngusMc on June 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Why write the extra words? They could have easily just said “That every citizen, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket….”

segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

So in Nucla, if having the “right to bear arms” means “being forced to bear arms,” then the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” must also mean being forced to live, be free and pursue happiness.

Hey everyone! Be free or we’ll lock you up!

Horatia on June 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

I have no problem with this as long as the requirement includes free and proper training for all citizens in the city of Nucla. The biggest issue with gun ownership isn’t the gun, it’s often the uneducated fool that owns the gun, and the most important aspect of gun ownership is learning how to be a responsible gun owner.

smfoushee on June 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

The 1792 act isn’t saying that everyone must have a gun. It’s saying that everyone must be in the militia(well, almost everyone), and every one in the militia must have a gun. There’s a difference. segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Can someone make sense of this?

I mean really. It’s that bad.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Y’all are wasting your bytes. Read the story. These folks are just doing their own thing, like they always have. As I said, you Easterners don’t have a clue about rural life in the Colorado mountains… From the Denver Post story, some of the more interesting parts:

“…guns were ingrained in the culture of this out-of-the-way western Colorado town before the current gun-rights movement…

A visitor is hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t already own guns — many guns — before the ordinance passed.

An elderly woman who was lunching on meatloaf and mashed potatoes at the West End Senior Center, said she keeps a pistol by her bed and has for 60 years. She didn’t want to give her name, she said with a wink, because she didn’t want to make any of the other gun-toting citizens of this town mad.

So why did the Nucla town board feel the need to pass an ordinance mandating guns for every household except those headed by felons, the mentally disabled, “paupers,” or those whose religion or other beliefs don’t line up with gun owning?
“We more or less kind of wanted to give criminals a heads up. Stay out of this town. We’re armed,” said board member Richard Craig, who, of course, owns guns, and who sports a ZZ Top-style beard that has earned him the local nickname “Father Time”.

“This isn’t the first time that Nucla has taken a weapons-related stance that outpaces, confounds or runs counter to what Craig calls “the outside world.”
Nucla made headlines in 1990 for hosting what then Gov. Roy Romer called a “slaughter fest.” The first Top Dog World Championship Prairie Dog Shoot attracted sport shooters who blew away nearly 3,000 prairie dogs.

“If you went to school without your gun you were some kind of nut because you were always going to shoot something on your way,” said Nucla Town Board member Les Mahana, who attended high school in Nucla in the 1970s.”

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23320447/nucla-becomes-colorados-first-and-only-town-mandating#ixzz343xpuuU2

n0doz on June 8, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Which means the idea of forced military service is OK, right?

Nope, like Obamacare, that too is anti-freedom.

AngusMc on June 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

You will have to found your own country where those rules apply, but that wasn’t the United States.

Militia Act of 1792

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

Forced military service.

sharrukin on June 8, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Pretty sure I went to the post office to fill out my card.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I actually went to the Selective Service office in Owensboro Kentucky to sign up. It was after I got out of the Navy too. I think I was 24 years old. I got a bad boy letter for not being registered while I was off the coast of Vietnam! We all got a big kick out of that. It had all kind of dire warnings about what could happen if I didn’t get my butt down and register. My father called them and explained that I would be unable to sign up until I got back and conveyed my deepest apologies.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I bring this down to the personal level. While I believe that gun control is hitting what you aim at on the first shot, I am one of the last people who should depend on a gun to defend herself. (I do have a baseball bat in the hall.)

Since we cleared my childhood home out and the contents are in my living room (boxes upon boxes) along with the three dogs who would trip anyone entering my house, I should be able to hold them off until help would arrive. And the first help would be my neighbors. (And one of those running to aid me would be ten year old Susie)

While I could learn to properly defend myself with a firearm, there are others who should never be allowed to even own a cap pistol (which I have along with three bb pistols)

Tinker on June 8, 2014 at 11:54 AM

The biggest issue with gun ownership isn’t the gun, it’s often the uneducated fool that owns the gun,

smfoushee on June 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Stairs and swimming pools are more dangerous than guns.

sharrukin on June 8, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I give Jazz kudos for the update.

And wonder if he will heed the call and buy a flintlock.

Cabela’s, dude.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM

The idea that there should be no difference between what one likes and what one thinks should be mandated is extraordinarily destructive to liberty…

Fascinating information provided by unclesmrgol in the comments providing some historical reference I was unaware of. “An Act more effectually to Provide for the National Defense by establishing a Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.

My first thought was one of national defense. We are all responsible for the nation’s defense, especially as free people. If we can be conscripted, we can be compelled to be armed. Viewed in that way this is nothing like what Cooke or you imagines it to be. However, I see no real value in doing this. Unlike Sweden we don’t train all adults to handle firearms. If there are those who wish to be potential victims let them be.

NotCoach on June 8, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Has the Militia Act been repealed or is it still on the books?

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 12:00 PM

actually went to the Selective Service office in Owensboro Kentucky to sign up. It was after I got out of the Navy too. I think I was 24 years old. I got a bad boy letter for not being registered while I was off the coast of Vietnam! We all got a big kick out of that. It had all kind of dire warnings about what could happen if I didn’t get my butt down and register. My father called them and explained that I would be unable to sign up until I got back and conveyed my deepest apologies. Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I seem to remember some burning them. Cerimonially.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Fascinating. Once again you can learn something new every day here. I’d still love to see it challenged in court, though. But definitely worth the mention in an update, though.

Jazz Shaw on June 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Actually you should have been intimate with the 1792 militia act already. It was used a defense of the ObamaCare mandate by the left.

NotCoach on June 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Thumbs up on the M14/M1A posts above.

justltl on June 8, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I seem to remember some burning them. Cerimonially.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

I proudly filled mine out right after voting for Ronald Reagan the first time. The first election that I was old enough to vote in.

VegasRick on June 8, 2014 at 12:09 PM

I seem to remember some burning them. Cerimonially.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 12:04 PM

I remember seeing a bunch of long haired creeps burning them in protest. My guess is that had Obama been of an age then he’d have been amongst that group. Just my opinion.

Oldnuke on June 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Several of the Colonies were given grants to be able to arm up and to get their arms without taxes, and to have a local administration set up the means for defending the colony in question. I did a piece on that a bit ago, looking at the state of affairs for arms prior to the Declaration (and just during that time, as well).

For the most part it was to organize self-defense against the unknowns of the colony, but to also serve as a Militia against more organized threats (like those of piracy with pirates wading ashore or from foreign power intrigues via the natives). It is fun to see just how that era dealt with the extension of the Common Law to the New World.

ajacksonian on June 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM

it’s one city, those who don’t like the law can work to repeal it. if repeal doesn’t work they can move.

chasdal on June 8, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Nuncla is a tiny little berg. None of you would give a rip about it or even notice as you drove by.

This is media stupidity.

CrazyGene on June 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Absolutely.
This area (Nucla) is as rural, as rural can get. Idiots from Denver, writing about this law are just trying to get a bite. This is farming, ranching, and mining country. It is spread out over a large area with only a few sheriff and state police officers. People are required to defend themselves if need be.
Our culture, because of irresponsible gun violence in big cities, has been ingrained with a fear of guns and that only the police should be able to defend us. Which is, of course, pure idiocy.
Also, I know it has been commented here before, Switzerland requires all households to be armed and to know how to use them. It is still one of the safest countries in the world.

Garym on June 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I see that the act of 1792 makes no distinction lawabiding citizens vs felons or even the insane. Because it was a given that every citizen had the right to self defense and it was understood that if you are convicted of committing a crime, you would pay for that crime. The operative phrase is “shall not be infringed”.

As one noted earlier about forced to serve in the draft, that isn’t just the Federal prerogative, but belonged to the states, and by extension the people. So yeah if a libtard doesn’t like it, don’t move there. This responsibility goes to the core of the government’s core responsibility to defend our rights unlike OboobiCare which seeks to give free insurance to some by taking from others

AH_C on June 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM

For those who support the idea, how would you apply it to the unemployed biker with multiple arrests for dealing meth & for beating the crap out of his wife and kids whenever the mood takes him, but who lives on the edge of town and still qualifies as a “head of family”???
Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Punish him for the crimes he does commit? Next question.

Oh yeah, said biker probably already owns a gun or two illegaly now. This law should now make it legal for him to own them to protect home and family yet hold him liable for any crimes in dealing meth or beating his wife. BTW, what do you have against the unemployed? Should they be unarmed?

Since cars kill more people than guns, should we ban methheads and wifebeaters from owning or operating cars?

AH_C on June 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Which means the idea of forced military service is OK, right?

Nope, like Obamacare, that too is anti-freedom.

AngusMc on June 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Actually, the constitution does state allows Congress to “raise and support Armies” and thus very constitutional. When “IT” the fan, we all become 11Bravos my friend. First thing I did when I turn 18 was sent in my SSS form.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM

When “IT” hits the fan, we all become 11Bravos my friend.

Correction for my last comment.

BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 1:31 PM

I’ve been to Nucla, it’s in the middle of nowhere, like a million miles to anything. Does a call for help there make a sound?
I haven’t an opinion about whether this is a good law or not. But, the laws of common sense would tell me if I lived in the area, I and all my family members would own and learn to handle fire arms.

oldernwiser on June 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Why write the extra words? They could have easily just said “That every citizen, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket….”
segasagez on June 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

To further stress the point that standing armies/militias are the responsibility of the states, not the federal. The minimum standard were freed white men, states could expand as thet saw fit. Andrew Jackson served and was a POW of the Brits at age 13. Certainly men over 45 “served”, as did women, girls and Blacks depending on the State.

Originally, the feds would only maintain the navy and marines for the projection of force offshore. “Coast guarding” was contracted out to hunt down pirates etc. But in case of war with a foreign enemy, the Fed would “nationalize” the armies until cessation of hostilities.

AH_C on June 8, 2014 at 1:43 PM

actually, the constitution does state allows Congress to “raise and support Armies” and thus very constitutional. When “IT” the fan, we all become 11Bravos my friend. First thing I did when I turn 18 was sent in my SSS form. BigGator5 on June 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Wouldn’t it be nice if you took your own rifle that you knew how to shoot?

I don’t know,, I grew up shooting. As a way of life.

I don’t think it’s that way anymore, and we’ll pay for it.

Other cultures put AK’s in cribs.

I think maybe we thought we were done after WWII.

wolly4321 on June 8, 2014 at 1:50 PM

For those who support the idea, how would you apply it to the unemployed biker with multiple arrests for dealing meth & for beating the crap out of his wife and kids whenever the mood takes him, but who lives on the edge of town and still qualifies as a “head of family”???
Tom Servo on June 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Then he’s probably a convicted felon and is already proscribed from owning a firearm by the law elsewhere.

Untwist your panties a bit, you’re getting hysterical.

Midas on June 8, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2