Ammo For Sale

« « So, there’s this IRS scandal among others | Home | PSH » »

Suing over making gun ownership a requirement

Symbolically a requirement, any way. But the Brady Campaign To Cling To Relevancy is suing:

A group that supports gun control filed suit Thursday against a north Georgia town that recently passed a law requiring gun ownership that it said is mostly symbolic.

The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Nelson, about 50 miles north of Atlanta, claiming the law is unconstitutional. The suit contends the Second Amendment doesn’t require anyone to have a gun, and government cannot require citizens to arm themselves.

“Forcing residents to buy guns they do not want or need won’t make the city of Nelson or its people any safer, and only serves to increase gun sales and gun industry profits,” Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said in a statement.

7 Responses to “Suing over making gun ownership a requirement”

  1. RandyGC Says:

    Forcing residents to buy health insurance they do not want or need wont make the city of Nelson or its people any safer

    Somehow I doubt they see the irony

  2. Robb Allen Says:

    Forcing residents to be unable to buy a gun is something they’re fine with. Turn it around and suddenly, they’re all about ‘people’s rights’.

    Symbolic or not, I disagree with the law. I grew up walking around Kennesaw and yes, it was a safe area, but I no more believe in requiring people to buy guns as I do in any attempt to prevent them from doing so.

    If that puts me on the side of the Bradys, well I’ll just have to suck it up for consistency’s sake.

  3. dg13 Says:

    With the liberator design available, I do not think they can claim that the law supports gun manufacturers…..when you can just print your own….or go down to kinkos and print one (one of these days).

  4. Skip Says:

    Did they even read the fuckin’ ordinance before they pissed themselves and filed?

  5. Brad Says:

    No standing. Suit will be dismissed.

  6. dan Says:

    I forget; did someone sue Kennesaw over their very similar law?

  7. Jim Says:

    Kennesaw has loopholes for those who object on personal religious or moral grounds. No doubt, Nelson’s does, too.

    Bradyiots likely never actually read the ordnance ordinance.

    Jim
    Sunk New Dawn
    Galveston, TX