Nucla, Colo. Passes Ordinance Making Gun Ownership Mandatory

[Loup Garou]

?

As much of the nation continues to debate gun control and as Colorado gets ready to implement sweeping new gun control laws just passed in the latest legislative session, one small town in southwest Colorado has decided to go in the opposite direction by passing an ordinance that makes gun ownership mandatory.

Nucla, Colo., about 50 miles south of Grand Junction and with a population of less than 1,000, recently passed an ordinance on a 5-1 vote which requires a head of a household to own a gun, according to the Montrose Daily Press.

The new ordinance does have some exceptions for heads of households who can't legally own a gun or who simply do not want to own a gun.

Bill Long, the lone board member who voted against the measure says it's just a symbolic gesture and that it's just as intrusive as laws that try to limit guns. "Ideologically, it's no different than saying, 'You can't own guns,' Long said to The Associated Press. "If you want less government in our lives, this isn't that. It's a symbolic gesture."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/nucla-colo-passes-ordinan_n_3306189.html

[clarice]

1. I'm pro 2nd ammend...but this is stupid. nt

[Hoyt]

3. Millions of stupid gun nuts/cultists out there, and that is the problem.

This is just more proof -- if anyone really needs it -- that gunners, mostly right wing Aholes, really aren't responsible like they tell us.

[clarice]

4. Wow, that's a VERY broad brush you are painting with. nt

[Hoyt]

9. Extensive experience, mostly with right wing bigoted gunners.

Exceptions? Maybe. But even those who don't fit in that category cling to their guns even though they know it means lightly educated bigoted gun owners are standing next to our kids in public, and passing their gun crud down to their kids.

Do you think these Colorado jerks did this for the right/moral reasons?

[clarice]

10. No! I said the law was stupid. I just don't like stereotypes. nt

[Hoyt]

11. If it fits. . . . . . . Go to a gun show or store, and see what you think.

You won't find much diversity, or folks pushing liberal ideals.

[clarice]

12. www.theliberalgunclub.com

[Hoyt]

13. Yeah right. Go to a gun show, take some photos.

Look at NRA convention, check out the Prez Elect Big Jim Something.

[clarice]

14. I don't judge people by their appearance.nt

[Hoyt]

15. Does not surprise me. I guess you think these militia men are Democrats?

[clarice]

16. I have no idea what their political affiliation is. And I don't presume to know.nt

[Squinch]

18. I'd be willing to bet you DO know what their political affiliation is. And you know you do.

[clarice]

26. Um...ok.....next? nt

[CreekDog]

27. stinking up my thread on Oklahoma tordadoes and climate change

now stinking up this one too?

[clarice]

28. Um...ok.....next? nt

[rl6214]

21. That's typical of that poster clarice.

And welcome to DU.

[clarice]

25. Thanks for the welcome....

Note to self...ignore Hoyty-Hate.

[Laelth]

2. Bizarre.

It appears that this law says, "If you want to own a gun, you must own a gun. If you are legally prohibited from owning a gun, or, if you don't want to own a gun, you don't have to, but if you have any desire to own a gun, you must do so."

That's stupid beyond belief.

-Laelth

[Autumn]

5. That's Nucla CO

I know that place well, my father lived there for a while.

[bluedigger]

7. I wish they would pass that in my town.

I'd love to challenge my local police department to arrest me for non-compliance. It might happen, too. Nucla is just up the road a ways.

[El Supremo]

6. I believe that it the town where they hold a annual prairie dog shoot.

[freshwest]

8. Looks like the RW version of government tryanny by forcing one to support the gun industry.

They'll pretend that this regulation isn't an infringement on 'liberty.'

BTW, I'm not totally awake.

[jimmy the one]

17. you MUST, unless you don't want to

The new ordinance does have some exceptions for heads of households who can't legally own a gun or who simply do not want to own a gun.

Exceptions for people who simply do not want to own a gun.
-- Wheeee, in other words, a toothless ordinance enacted by 5 of six 2nd amendment legislative whackjobs, simply to maintain the existing status quo in the town - while appearing to create some form of voodoo gun magic to protect from phantom tyrranical boogeymen descending upon the town of nucla colorado trying to take over the govt..

STAY AWAY PHANTOM BOOGEYMEN, EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN NUCLA HAS A FIREARM INSIDE (unless the owner doesn't want one).
EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN NUCLA ALSO HAS FINGERNAIL CLIPPERS TOO (unless the owner doesn't want them).

NUCLA, Colorado, where by law you MUST buy a gun --- unless you don't want to.

[Squinch]

19. Bunch of idiots being idiotic.

[rl6214]

20. I think that's as ridiculous as passing an ordinance banning all guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Kennesaw, GA, did that in 1982.

Like this law, they made exceptions for those who couldn't afford one, or who were conscientiously opposed. IOW, nobody really had to buy a gun. The law was a publicity stunt after Morton Grove, Il, (a suburb of Chicago) outlawed all handguns in the city. Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta.

Kennesaw has not had a gun death in 25 years. I don't know about Morton Grove. BTW - They lifted the ban after the Heller decision.

[jimmy the one]

30. publicity stunt?

gsc: Kennesaw has not had a gun death in 25 years. I don't know about Morton Grove. BTW - They lifted the ban after the Heller decision.

During morton grove's handgun ban period, it consistently had a lower violent crime rate than kennesaws (& later both kennesaw's zip codes) by about 30%, & consistently had a lower property crime rate than kennesaw, sometimes parity in one zip.
Evidently you are correct, I thought it was after mcdonald that MG lifted handgun ban.

gsc: Like this law, they made exceptions for those who couldn't afford one, or who were conscientiously opposed. IOW, nobody really had to buy a gun. The law was a publicity stunt after Morton Grove, Il, outlawed all handguns in the city.

Just a publicity stunt? gunworld sure strutted a lot how the burglary rate fell in kennesaw right after the 'publicity stunt', assigning the stunt's gun requirement the reason for the drop in burg.

wiki: Gun rights activist Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure. Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw], even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Others can claim what they want.

A law that is not enforced and designed to be unenforceable, amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt. Their goal was to flip the bird to MG, and by extension to gun banners, nothing more.

I said nothing about crime rates. Many factors go into a local's crime rate such that gun ownership is impossible to isolate as a factor. I simply noted that they haven't had any gun deaths. However, most small communities don't have gun deaths in any given year, or decade for that matter. Outside of large cities gun deaths are fairly rare.

[jimmy the one]

32. MG v Kennesaw stats

gsc: I said nothing about crime rates.

That's immaterial. If you say it's a publicity stunt then gun guru kopel has no right to claim it was a reason for a drop in burglary rates in kennesaw soon after implementation. Nor does the kennesaw cop I cite below, nor anyone else.

gsc: A law that is not enforced and designed to be unenforceable, amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt. Their goal was to flip the bird to MG, and by extension to gun banners, nothing more.

I don't disagree it wasn't some kind of hocus pocus, perhaps to counter da grove, but here is what an apparent kennesaw cop said back then: Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime {untrue, burg rates went down} … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.”a progun link tho, mostly propaganda: http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

gsc: I simply noted that they haven't had any gun deaths. However, most small communities don't have gun deaths in any given year, or decade for that matter. Outside of large cities gun deaths are fairly rare.

City crime comparison tables prior to 2008 heller, are pretty much gone now, & only list post 2008 stats, but I had followed the comparisons for about 10-15 yrs & Morton Grove consistenly outperformed Kennesaw in violent crime (~30% lower) & property crime, & parity in murder (as you say so little it was under 2 or 3 in each city yearly, iirc).
The crime rate stats between the two cities have been similar to the 2010 stats below, for the whole time I've been observing, with the exception that kennesaw has since split into 2 zips & for one property crime about parity (but MG slightly better), the other MG about 30% less property crime:
2010 Crime Rate Kennesaw, GA Morton Grove, IL US
Total Crime Risk ...56 ..........35 ........100
Murder Risk ........27 ..........15 ........100
Rape Risk ..........46 ..........42 .........100
Robbery Risk .......38 ..........15 .........100
Assault Risk .......16 ..........47 .........100
Burglary Risk ......54 ..........41 ........100
Larceny Risk .......64 ..........83 .........100
AutoTheft Risk .....67 ..........33 .........100
http://www.clrsearch.com/Kennesaw-Demographics/Ga/Crime-Rate?compare=morton+grove+illinois

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Your logic is in error.

A law that is passed for one reason can have unintended results. It is possible that the hollow gun ownership requirement may, or may not, have also caused, a drop in crime, even though the intention was as a publicity stunt.

As a publicity stunt it worked, as Kennesaw has been talked about for that law for the 31 years since then.

It is impossible to prove that the law had any effect, one way or another, on crime. I will not get sucked into that discussion.

[jimmy the one]

36. my logic is fine

gsc: Your logic is in error. A law that is passed for one reason can have unintended results. It is possible that the hollow gun ownership requirement may, or may not, have also caused, a drop in crime, even though the intention was as a publicity stunt.

How convenient. So gun gurus can give credit to guns when crime rates drop, then contend the law was not intended to improve anything, if crime doesn't drop. How convenient.

It is impossible to prove that the law had any effect, one way or another, on crime. I will not get sucked into that discussion.

You just called gun guru kopel (amongst others) a liar. He can't give credit to guns if it's impossible to tell, right? thank you.

Gun rights activist Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65* before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.
Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure. Later research claims that there is no evidence that reduced the rate of home burglaries , even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005

* It's alleged (& likely true, see previous post) that this 65 (other source says 55) burglary figure was inflated by the town's mayor, an avid supporter of the gun law, to transmogrify comparison 'before-after' figures.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. I am under no obligation to support Kopel or anybody else.

I get to think for myself.

[jimmy the one]

33. kennesaw's mayor lowballed, er, underreported

population 2003: Morton Grove 22,966 and Kennesaw 25,183
2003 actual crime figures comparison. --- Note small totals.
In 2003, Morton Grove had 2 murders and Kennesaw 1.
In 2003, Morton Grove had 4 robberies 7 in Kennesaw.
In 2003, Morton Grove had 12 aggravated assaults 15 in Kennesaw.
In 2003, Morton Grove had 70 burglaries 89 in Kennesaw.
In 2003, Morton Grove had 390 incidents of larcency and theft 455 in Kennesaw
http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2007/04/kennesaw-georgia-gun-violence-reduction.html

another source: (year after kennesaw law passed ~1982) - Burglaries in Kennesaw did not change significantly, while Morton Grove’s burglary rate fell by 4.5 burglaries per month. (See McDowall et al Criminology v29 p541-560 (1991). But at the time late 80's kennesaw had lower overall burg rate.
.. McDowall report: There is a curious discrepancy between the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw’s mayor in interviews cited by Kleck (1988) and Schmidt (1987) and the number of burglaries reported by Kennesaw’s police department to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.
The mayor claimed to Schmidt, for example, that there were 55 residential burglaries in 1981, before he law was passed. This is greater than the total number of all burglaries — residential and otherwise — reported by the police dept to the UCR. Given the mayor’s spirited advocacy of the ordinance and the apparent differences in the figures he provided we believe the UCR counts are the more accurate of the two.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/16/kennesaw-gun-ordinance-yet-aga/

Note, mayor cited 55 kennesaw burgs ~1981/82, but from above link: In 2003, Morton Grove had 70 burglaries 89 in Kennesaw.

[ileus]

35. While I believe everyone should have the means to protect their family,

life, and home I think laws like this are just plain dumb.

Everyone who cares about self defense and safety of their family already invest in personal protection devices without local agencies telling them to.

[Starboard Tack]

37. What exactly do you mean by "personal protection devices"?

Guns are not personal protection devices, they are tools designed to kill. They may be used for personal protection, but so may a hammer.
I agree that all should have the means to protect themselves and their family and, under certain circumstances, I can see a gun, or a hammer, being used for that purpose. However, neither one is designed to be a "personal protection device".
Let's aim for a little more honesty and less euphemistic bullshit.

Seatbelts, airbags, PFDs, pepper spray, bug spray and sunscreen are personal protection devices. Capisci?

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Dan Baum in "Gun Guys" makes the same point.

We who support RKBA should back off from using euphemisms. We should state the naked truth boldly.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Thank you!

Nothing sounds more ridiculous than calling a gun a "safety tool", or "self protection device". A gun is a gun, not a fucking condom.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. You have given me an idea for a thread.

Check out the other group.