Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/23/2003 3:28:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 3:29:08 PM EST by clean_cut]
According to a proposed ordinance.


Geuda Springs councilman defends gun law

Traveler Correspondent

Geuda Springs City Council member John Brewer said he wants to set the record straight regarding an ordinance he proposed requiring all citizens of the community to possess a firearm and ammunition. Brewer said that, because of an old rough draft of the ordinance that is being circulated, many people throughout the state do not have a true picture of the content and purpose of the proposed law.

"Someone has stolen an early draft of the ordinance and sent it out," Brewer said. "The rough draft had several mistakes in it, all of which have been corrected in the final copy."

The ordinance, which was passed by the Council on November 3, states that every head of household living in the community of about 200 is required to own a firearm and ammunition.

"We are an incorporated city," Brewer said. "As an incorporated city, we have duties and responsibilities to our citizens. One is utilities, one is protection and one is judicial services. We currently provide utilities and judicial services are provided by the county, but we currently don,t provide protection. Here in Geuda Springs, we don,t have a police force or a marshal, and the protection of the people is mandated to the city government. The ordinance is really just a legal statement that shows that we are providing for protection of our citizens. It fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual household to provide for his or her own protection. We are simply using the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the City of Geuda Springs' advantage."

Brewer said the proposed law also helps to ensure the citizens the right to own a firearm.

"All of the big cities are attacking the gun manufacturers and blaming them for crimes committed in their cities," Brewer said. "They are still legal instruments. We are just trying to overcome one more stumbling block that gun owners face."

The proposed law does provide for several exemptions to the mandate, including those who are physically or mentally disabled and unable to operate a firearm. Other exemptions are made for those who conscientiously oppose owning a gun due to their beliefs or religious doctrine and anyone that as been convicted of a felony.

"We don't want anyone who does not want to have a gun to have one," Brewer said. "If they just flat don't want one, we are not going to make them have one."

The ordinance also provides for a penalty of a fine of not more than $10 for violators.

"We believe that if we are going to have the law, we have to provide a penalty," Brewer said.

"We don't want anybody to be fined. We will not be running around searching homes and assessing fines. The only reason we have that included is that it would not be a law without a penalty or fine."

The ordinance includes a section on firearm safety and use of firearms within the city limits. The maintenance of the firearms rests on the owners,'along with the responsibility to keep them secured in a safe and responsible manner.

The proposed law also states that a firearm may not be fired in the community except in defending of person or property or if taking part in events with express permission of the City Council such as shooting matches, trap shoots and other shooting games.

Brewer said that he has received some positive feedback on the proposed law from some members of the community.

"About everybody I have talked to said they see nothing wrong with the law," Brewer said. "In my opinion, there may be about three to five percent of the public that are not in favor."

The ordinance has been approved by the Council, but has not yet been signed or published and has not yet become effective. The proposed law is currently being investigated by Thomas Herlocker, City Attorney for legal issues.

A copy of the ordinance was also sent by an unknown person to the Sumner County Sheriff,s Office, who then forwarded it to the Kansas Attorney General f or further review. Council members are expected to further discuss the issue at their next regular meeting, scheduled for December 1 at 7 p.m. at the City Building at 117 South First Street.

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:41:35 PM EST
I like it but it is sad that they have to pass a law to do what the 2nd.Amend. is suppose to do. There is a law like this somewhere in GA. as well. I'll bet the crime rate will go down in that town in a matter of a few months. As John Lott's book says, "More guns, less crime.".
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:44:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:50:30 PM EST
Disagree with the law. No one can make you own a gun. Sorry. If you aren't going to enforce the law, why bother?
If they had passed an ordance and agreed to give a used .38 police special with 50 rounds for every resident who wanted it, I could go for that.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:54:51 PM EST
The law may be flawed, but these council members aren't Harvard Law graduates here. The spirit is in the right place.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:00:03 PM EST
I'm sure that alot of people will just go to Wal-Mart, buy a single shot 20Ga., a box of shells and call it a day. Never shoot it or clean it, just stick it in the closet to comply with the law. I tend to agree, a law shouldn't force you to own a gun anymore then it should stop you from owning one.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:06:45 PM EST
Years back Nebraska had what was called in Washington DC the "shoot your neighbor law". It basically stated that if someone was even trespassing on your land and you felt threatened, you could shoot to kill. The law lasted for about 6 months. The liberals in DC went nuts. Forced Nebraska to recend the law. During the 6 month period no-one was killed or shot and crime took a nose-dive. Go figure...
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:14:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Disagree with the law. No one can make you own a gun. Sorry. If you aren't going to enforce the law, why bother?
If they had passed an ordance and agreed to give a used .38 police special with 50 rounds for every resident who wanted it, I could go for that.

I think what really happened was this was drafted by a few people who are not too familiar with law-making. They threw in the $10 penalty because it sounded right, or felt like a law ought to have SOME penalty.
Top Top