WOW! Smart!

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This towns council has it's stuff together. Too bad the school system is run by idiots. Watch the crime rate drop like a rock if this passes.

[h=1]Utah town makes arming households a top priority[/h]
SPRING CITY, Utah (AP) — Officials in a small Utah town want to make sure every head of household has a firearm and knows how to use it, and they want to give school teachers training with guns too.


Spring City Councilman Neil Sorensen first proposed an ordinance requiring a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. The rest of the council scoffed at making it a requirement, but they unanimously agreed to move forward with an ordinance "recommending" the idea.


The council also approved funding to offer concealed firearms training Friday to the 20 teachers and administrators at the localelementary school.


"It sends a statement that criminals better think twice," Sorensen told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "If a teacher would have had a concealed weapon in Sandy Hook, I think the death loss would have been fewer. If sane, trained people had guns, they could have shot back."


The measure, which will go before the full council in February for further review, seems to have the support of the council's five members and many residents in the farming community about 90 miles south of Salt Lake City.


But school administrators don't think arming teachers is wise, and they are not encouraging teachers to participate in Friday's training.


"The more guns you have in the school, the more dangerous it is," said Leslie Keisel, superintendent of the North Sanpete School District.


Councilman Noel Bertelson said making guns in every house mandatory was too much, but he agrees the town would be safer if everyone was armed. With only a part-time police force, he said, response time is not like it is in a big city.


"If a person is able to take care of themselves for a while, it would probably be a good thing," Bertelson said.


The community is still reeling from the double-murder on New Year's Eve 2011 of an elderly couple in nearby Mount Pleasant. Sorensen said what used to be a peaceful, quiet town has been sullied by increasing criminal activity.


Thefts of metal for scrap and other property also have become a problem, Councilman Boyd Mickelsaid.


"We are kind of tired of people breaking in and taking stuff," said Mickel, explaining why he voted to urge every house to have a gun.


Timm Thompson, a coal miner and father of four girls who lives in Spring City, backs the council's measure.


"People think small towns are a good place to live," Thompson said. "But there is more crime and drugs than you can imagine."


Thompson, who owns 78 guns he keeps locked in a safe, doesn't want teachers to act as police officers. He said some kids are "hooligans" and could overpower teachers for the guns.


Sisters Katy Harmer and Caroline Lott, however, say arming teachers would make them feel better about sending their children to the Spring City Elementary School. The co-owners of the town's coffee shop, Das Coffee, said most Spring City residents keep guns for hunting, leaving only a handful without weapons.


Angela Johnson, owner of the Sinclair gas station, said she doesn't like guns but backs the council's proposal.


"If criminals knew they would be fired against, I think it would cause pause," Johnson said.


Because the Spring City Council is stopping short of a law requiring gun ownership, elected officials won't run afoul of state law, former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told KSL.com.


Shurtleff said that when the Washington County town of Virgin enacted a local law in 2000 requiring households to keep guns, he warned them against trying to enforce the measure.


Spring City leaders say they got the idea from a city in Georgia that passed a similar law. In 1982, Kennesaw, Ga., made headlines by requiring heads of households to own a gun and ammunition. On its website, Kennesaw boasts that its burglary rate declined after the law took effect.


Teachers at Spring City Elementary School won't be required to attend Friday's concealed weapons training, but can if they wish, Principal Mark Thomas said.


"I don't think there is anything wrong about being educated how to use a gun," Thomas said.


But Thomas doesn't believe having more armed teachers would necessarily prevent or mitigate the damage in mass shootings. Utah law allows teachers to have concealed weapon in classrooms, but the district doesn't advocate for that, Thomas said.


"By bringing weapons into school, are we creating more problems than we are solving?" he asked. "It could create a new problem. We don't want to deal with that problem."


The proposed ordinance will be discussed at the Feb. 7 City Council meeting. A public hearing will be held three weeks later.








Utah town makes arming households a top priority - Yahoo! News
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
All one has to do is look at Kennesaw, Georgia and Morton Grove, Illinois. Well, anyone with a brain and the common sense to actually use it. That eliminates Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Jackson-Lee/Feinstein and scores of other dumber than dirt liberal morons though. The comparison of the two clearly answers all the questions.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Now there ya go... Take freedom away by imposing the will of the people on others....forcing guns on people... So much for the Constitution now.....only a moron would support this action! This ideas is equally as bad as trying to ban guns.
 

Slo-Ride

Veteran Expediter
I didnt read all of it but I think somewhere in the first few paragraphs it was a recommendation or turned into one. Not a law.
But I do kinda agree with you OVM somewhat as there are pleanty of ppl out here I dont want to see anywhere near a gun. But if they want to I say let em, chances are they wont be around long anyways (hopefully).
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Now there ya go... Take freedom away by imposing the will of the people on others....forcing guns on people... So much for the Constitution now.....only a moron would support this action! This ideas is equally as bad as trying to ban guns.

MMMM, US code REQUIRES every male between the ages of 18-45 to own a firearm and be able to produce it if called on to fight. Further into the code it goes on to spell out how much shot and powder each is to have on hand. I BELIEVE it is 30 rounds each.

The Michigan Constitution REQUIRES that all males between the ages of 18-45 in the Michigan Militia.

People back then believed that all men held a responsibility for defending the State or the Nation. Too bad they did not include women. At least they SHOULD have levied that requirement on women when they got the right to vote, or, removed it from the men. Equal rights SHOULD require EQUAL responsibility.

They also understood that it was not possible for law enforcement and government to insure the safety of every person 100% of the time. The idea of today, forced victims, is a rather new idea and rather stupid.

Having said all of that, it is NOT a law this town is looking at and there will be no enforcement. Just saying this will lower crime. It WILL give the scumbags pause. Will I get nuked if I go into that house? Good chance in this town that I will. I will go rob a gun free town where everyone is a victim and the pickins are easy.
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Excellent plan, tested and proven. Kennesaw, GA. proves it's worth and effectiveness. It's a prima facie statute. Nobody will be forced to own a gun. There will never be a survey taken or a show and tell session mandated.

The point of it is that anyone contemplating an illegal act will have four options.

1. change their mind and don't commit their crime

2. go elsewhere to commit their crime

3. commit their crime taking their chances if the location has chosen to have a gun or not

4. search out the locations in the town with the big signs saying "No guns here, criminals welcome"
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
MMMM, US code REQUIRES every male between the ages of 18-45 to own a firearm and be able to produce it if called on to fight. Further into the code it goes on to spell out how much shot and powder each is to have on hand. I BELIEVE it is 30 rounds each.
Link please. Educate me. The above was a requirement in the Colonies, but if firearm ownership requirement is in the US Code, it'll be news to me. Won't be the first time I've learned something new, though.

The Michigan Constitution REQUIRES that all males between the ages of 18-45 in the Michigan Militia.
But it does not require firearm ownership, as far as I know.


One interesting thing about this is the people who support government mandates of buying and owning a firearm (like in Kennesaw), are likely to be the very same people who get a little huffy at the notion of government mandated buying and owning of health insurance (like in Obamacare).
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
One interesting thing about this is the people who support government mandates of buying and owning a firearm (like in Kennesaw), are likely to be the very same people who get a little huffy at the notion of government mandated buying and owning of health insurance (like in Obamacare).

Could that be because anyone with common sense knows the former is optional and will never have any government enforcement while the latter will have government goons and thugs strongarming compliance?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Link please. Educate me. The above was a requirement in the Colonies, but if firearm ownership requirement is in the US Code, it'll be news to me. Won't be the first time I've learned something new, though.

But it does not require firearm ownership, as far as I know.


One interesting thing about this is the people who support government mandates of buying and owning a firearm (like in Kennesaw), are likely to be the very same people who get a little huffy at the notion of government mandated buying and owning of health insurance (like in Obamacare).


An excerpt from a longer Wiki story:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach 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...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[SUP][97]

AS to the story I Posted, It is NOT a law so I have no problem


[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 

Brisco

Expert Expediter
Seems to me that Spring City, Utah is taking the Tried and True Swiss (Switzerland) game plan to reduce Crime in their City.

In Switzerland, every Male in that Country MUST obtain Military Training (those that are determined "Fit" for Military Service - or about 2/3rds of the Male Population in General) when they hit their 18th Birthday. After this Training.....those that choose not to go into the Military Service full-time are required to have ALL their Military Equipment with them, and that includes their Military Issued ASSAULT Rifle, at their Homes with them from the time they're 20 years old up to their 42nd Birthday.

Here is an Interesting Article that covers this, as well as comparisons to what is going on within our country concerning Government trying to control privately owned "Guns" here. Reading through this article, I am led to believe that the Author penned this sometime right after the Columbine Killings.

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss - by Stephen P. Halbrook

Some good quotes here that still resonate with what's going on today:

In American society, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and excessively-violent movies. In Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity.

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm aware of that Act, I'm just not aware of there the Act exists in the current federal law, except, that Act applied only to the Uniform Militia, not the citizen militia, and it only applied after men had been drafted into the Uniform Militia (severally and respectively be enrolled), and only applied within the first 6 months after they've been enrolled and so notified of their enrollment. It also was for local militias, not national. It's been highly amended since them.

The Act you quoted above was one of a pair of Militia Acts of 1792, the other one being passed 6 days earlier on May 2, which provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states "whenever the United Stated shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".

Both Acts were in direct response to St Claire's Defeat (also known as the Battle of the Wabash) where 1000 Indians led by Buckongahelas (of the Delaware Indians), Blue Jacket (Shawnee Indians), Little Turtle (Miami Indians) (no relation, I don't think), and several Potawatomi Indians utterly slaughtered all but 48 of the US forces, resulting in a humiliating defeat for General Arthur St. Clair.

But both Militia Acts of 1792 had a 2-year shelf life, where after those two years the presidential authority and other provisions in the acts would expire. But then, just days before the Acts were set to expire, those wacky western Pennsylvanians unleashed the Whiskey Rebellion, which caused George Washington to show the newly created federal government's steadfast resolve in crushing any violent resistance to it's laws, broke out the authority given to him under the Militia Acts of 1792 and called up the militia and put down the rebellion. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795 which made the provisions of the first Acts of 1792 permanent.

The War of 1812 showed how little compliance there was with mandated gun ownership, with estimates ranging from 10-65 percent. The 1795 Act was amended by the Militia Act of 1862, and then again by the Militia Act of 1903, which fully established the uniformed United States National Guard as the main body of organized military reserves in the United States (and also ensured that state armies were at the same time under the dual control of the US Army Reserve, to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as their private little armies, which happened a lot during the during the Civil War). But the 1862 Act, which allowed blacks to serve in the militia, removed the musket ownership mandate, replacing it with government-issue firearms and ammunition.

So, unless there's something in the US Code that I'm not aware of, and I'm sure there is, there is no federal law which requires US civilian citizens of any age to own firearms. That's why I was hoping for a link to the actual statute, like here (Office of the Law Revision Counselk, US House)here or here (CFR - Table of Contents - Cornell University Law Library), both of which have the full, searchable text of the US Code.

Also, part of the problem with requiring gun ownership, is that if you can do that, you can also require them not to own guns. That would be problematic, as we are seeing currently with the gun control wackos.
 

scottm4211

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Turtles last paragraph is key. If the town council made the suggestion that citizens don't own guns, there would be outrage here (rightly), about government interference. But when they do the same interfering with something you support, you're all for it.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Turtles last paragraph is key. If the town council made the suggestion that citizens don't own guns, there would be outrage here (rightly), about government interference. But when they do the same interfering with something you support, you're all for it.

No, not correct. One is was a SUGGESTION, not a mandate. TWO, it is LOCAL, not FEDERAL. HUGE difference.
 

scottm4211

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
No, not correct. One is was a SUGGESTION, not a mandate. TWO, it is LOCAL, not FEDERAL. HUGE difference.

I'm not saying federal. I said if that same local government made the suggestion not to own guns, you'd be critical of them (rightly)
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm aware of that Act, I'm just not aware of there the Act exists in the current federal law, except, that Act applied only to the Uniform Militia, not the citizen militia, and it only applied after men had been drafted into the Uniform Militia (severally and respectively be enrolled), and only applied within the first 6 months after they've been enrolled and so notified of their enrollment. It also was for local militias, not national. It's been highly amended since them.

The Act you quoted above was one of a pair of Militia Acts of 1792, the other one being passed 6 days earlier on May 2, which provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states "whenever the United Stated shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".

Both Acts were in direct response to St Claire's Defeat (also known as the Battle of the Wabash) where 1000 Indians led by Buckongahelas (of the Delaware Indians), Blue Jacket (Shawnee Indians), Little Turtle (Miami Indians) (no relation, I don't think), and several Potawatomi Indians utterly slaughtered all but 48 of the US forces, resulting in a humiliating defeat for General Arthur St. Clair.

But both Militia Acts of 1792 had a 2-year shelf life, where after those two years the presidential authority and other provisions in the acts would expire. But then, just days before the Acts were set to expire, those wacky western Pennsylvanians unleashed the Whiskey Rebellion, which caused George Washington to show the newly created federal government's steadfast resolve in crushing any violent resistance to it's laws, broke out the authority given to him under the Militia Acts of 1792 and called up the militia and put down the rebellion. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795 which made the provisions of the first Acts of 1792 permanent.

The War of 1812 showed how little compliance there was with mandated gun ownership, with estimates ranging from 10-65 percent. The 1795 Act was amended by the Militia Act of 1862, and then again by the Militia Act of 1903, which fully established the uniformed United States National Guard as the main body of organized military reserves in the United States (and also ensured that state armies were at the same time under the dual control of the US Army Reserve, to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as their private little armies, which happened a lot during the during the Civil War). But the 1862 Act, which allowed blacks to serve in the militia, removed the musket ownership mandate, replacing it with government-issue firearms and ammunition.

So, unless there's something in the US Code that I'm not aware of, and I'm sure there is, there is no federal law which requires US civilian citizens of any age to own firearms. That's why I was hoping for a link to the actual statute, like here (Office of the Law Revision Counselk, US House)here or here (CFR - Table of Contents - Cornell University Law Library), both of which have the full, searchable text of the US Code.

Also, part of the problem with requiring gun ownership, is that if you can do that, you can also require them not to own guns. That would be problematic, as we are seeing currently with the gun control wackos.


I will TRY to dig out the code stuff. It has been a VERY long time since I had to deal with it.
I don't WANT mandatory gun ownership any more than I want my guns taken.

As I said, this was not going to be a LAW passed, more of a suggestion. It is also not at all like the Obama Care individual mandate. This was a LOCAL act, not Federal.
 
Top