AP/ March 8, 2013, 9:17 PM

Some U.S. communities seek to require gun ownership

AUGUSTA, Maine A town of 140 people in western Maine is considering an ordinance making gun ownership mandatory, the latest of a handful of communities nationwide to pass or consider such a rule even though the measures are widely considered unenforceable.

All three members of the Board of Selectmen in Byron favor it, and Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmunds said she expects residents to approve it at Monday's town meeting, a New England institution where townspeople vote up or down on municipal proposals.

"We're hoping that the town will get on board with us but will accept whatever the town wants," Simmons-Edmunds said Friday.

Communities from Idaho to Georgia have been inspired to "require" or recommend their residents arm themselves ever since a gunman killed 26 youngsters and educators Dec. 14 in a school in Newtown, Conn., and raised fears among gun owners about an impending restriction on Second Amendment rights.

The article up for a vote in Maine asks, "Shall the town of Byron vote to require all households to have firearms and ammunition to protect the citizens?"

Backed by gun rights supporters, the ordinance is intended to pre-emptively block gun-control laws, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills said, adding that it will be "null and void" even if it passes. It is pre-empted by a 2011 state law that bars municipalities from adopting firearm regulations.

"I think the town is going to have to shoot it down," Mills said Friday.

That's what happened this week in Sabattus, in southwestern Maine, where the selectmen took the police chief's advice and voted not to send a similar proposal to voters. David Marsters, a retiree in Sabbatus, had proposed the ordinance, saying it would act as a hedge against crime.

The idea has also caught on in Nelson, a city of just over 1,300 about 50 miles north of downtown Atlanta, where supporters of the gun-ownership proposal say light police patrols leave city residents virtually unprotected for most of the day.

The proposal contains several exemptions for people who object to owning firearms because of personal beliefs, religious reasons or mental disability. In a statement, Mayor Pro Tem Jonathan Bishop said convicted felons would also be exempted.

"I am in no way attempting to face off with the federal government, only doing what an elected official is supposed to do," Councilman Duane Cronic, who proposed the ordinance, said in an email Friday. The rule passed unanimously on its first reading and awaits a final vote April 1.

In Kennesaw, Ga., city officials worried at the time of its law's passage in 1982 that population growth in nearby Atlanta might bring crime to the community, which now has about 30,000 people.

"They wanted to send an anti-crime message, also," Kennesaw police Lt. Craig Graydon said.

And it has worked, he argued, with crime staying low.

Graydon acknowledged Kennesaw's ordinance is "unenforceable" and said no attempt has ever been made to do so.

Some communities don't go so far as to call for required gun ownership.

Spring City, Utah, moved forward with an ordinance this year "recommending" the idea of keeping firearms. Other ordinances have been passed in Virgin, Utah, and Cherry Tree, Pa., largely as symbolic gestures.

A southwestern Idaho town of 900 people, Greenleaf, adopted an ordinance in 2006 that encourages residents who don't object on religious or other reasons to keep a gun in the house and to seek training on using firearms. City officials said they don't know how many residents own guns.

In Maine, Byron's Simmons-Edmunds said that probably 90 percent of the households in town already have a gun and that passage would not mean the town would enforce it by checking every household.

"We not going to invade anybody's privacy," Byron's Simmons-Edmunds said. "We just want to send a statement that we're not going to give up our guns."

© 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
109 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Aussie_convict says:
The Land of the Free. LMAO.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Tink1159 says:
I wish government would understand that many people don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do; "All can, none must" should be enough.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
oldoc44 says:
Likely most folks in rural Maine already have a gun of some sort in their home...probably a hunting rifle, which is their practical choice. These kind of reactionary ideas speak to just how out of whack the whole gun issue has become. Common sense needs to finally get into this debate; it's not 1775 anymore and lots has changed in terms of our citizen makeup and our lifestyle too. Do we need to be held hostage by an idea that's not valid or appropriate any longer? The need for an up-to-date interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is needed just as it was for other pressing social/constitutional issues over the past hundred years or so.
reply
seabass6251 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
My rights aren't up for you to debate or change.

Besides, the Founding Fathers only enumerated inalienable rights...they didn't grant them.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
GhostF1ghter says:
a) a law requiring citizens to own firearms is laughable. For starters, that would be tantamount to conscription, and the last time I checked, the US government isn't even drafting anymore.

b) anybody on here who even begins to defend this stunted notion is by definition a nutball and needs to either get on drugs or get off them, depending on their current state.

So please, crazies, give us a break. Save the pixels. Because this is pure fictional nonsense.
reply
Lindag20 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The way I see it, people also have the right NOT to "bear arms". Besides that if I'm going to be forced to have weapons, I want something better than a paltry rifle or handgun. I want a RPG launcher and a drone at the minimum before I'd even consider "bearing arms".
seabass6251 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Windbag, you shouldn't be allowed to possess a BB gun let alone RPG.
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Lindag20 says:
If I live in such a community and don't own a gun, what will happen? Will the rest of the people there just shoot me?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
obicera1 says:
The only way I'd own a gun is if they pried my cold hand open and stuck it there.
reply
GhostF1ghter replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It's called a reverse Heston, LOL.
seabass6251 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Thank goodness poster. I don't need your help should I ever get involved in trying to stop a robbery or other violent crime.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
shurch4truth says:
what a wast of effort and time
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rzarc2 says:
The only thing more unconstitutional them banning all guns is making all people own them. I am a gun owner but these kind of laws are just plan ludicrous. What in hell are these town councils thinking?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
PourpaixPourpaix says:
Never would have thought that idiots that demented could ever have been elected. What do they expect? That at the first snide remark, grannie will whip out her Glock and take care of the problem right then and there? Only a fool thinks more guns is the answer to guarantee the peace. Because once you mix guns and people, common sense departs. Not just "everytime except for me because I'm God's gift to gun handlers". Common sense and guns don't ever mix.

There is no amount of training that guarantees flawless gun handling in even the most conscientious person. More guns, more bad behavior, more mistakes, and more people hurt. It's time for the little boys to put down their pop guns and grow up.
reply
Lindag20 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Exactly. There's a 75 year old woman on trial right now because she emptied her gun into her "favorite" grandson during some sort of dispute. The boy was on the phone with 9-1-1 asking for help and the grandma kept on shooting.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
GhostF1ghter says:
Look, this is a stupid publicity stunt that will never see the light of day. It's illegal, unenforceable, unconstitutional and just plain wrong. It will never happen.

Get real.
reply
aintfakin replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
if it is a tax that should kill the entire deal with right wingers
right?
ichibandan replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I though the big objection from the gun lobby was invasive government taking guns AWAY. How does a law requiring you to OWN a gun not fall into that same category? It's stupid and completely against the small government mentality.Do they really know what they want or are they just a bunch of parrots repating the last thing they heard?
See all 109 Comments
Scroll Left Scroll Right