Kennesaw Gun Law

[Rooks1]

I see there has been reference to the Kennesaw, GA Gun Law in other threads here in the forum. But, I am writing this thread to pose a few questions to those out there...

In 1982 Kennesaw, GA passed a law stating that all heads of household shall posses a firearm and ammunition for said firearm. There are loopholes in the law that relieve some of the residents from having to abide by the law. Criminals, mentally ill or handicapped, religous beliefs and even not being able to afford a firearm. Partly it was to uphold the safety of the residents in the town but another part to the law was a rebuttal to the law passed earlier that year in Morton Grove, Illinois that banned the possesion of firearms within the city limits where the press portrayed Morton Grove as "taking a stand against Evil Handguns".

The Kennesaw Law was promptly challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union stating it was unconstitutional. The Federal courts ruled otherwise letting the firearm possesion law stand.

The questions I am posing are:
- Do people think this is a good idea?
- What is keeping other towns in our beloved country from enacting a similar law?
- Could the law if enacted in another town elsewhere in the country be overturned by federal or suprememe court?

It has been proven that Kennesaw, GA has among the lowest if not the lowest crime rate of any town its size in the country. Roughly 75% lower than the national average. That is a staggering number. Why? I feel it is because crimminals do not know if the person they are messing with has a firearm, because odds are they do and they can protect themselves.

Some figures for you from FT.com
-- "almost 30 years after the law was passed, it is still in place and still popular, not least because Kennesaw’s crime rate has remained disproportionately low, even as the town’s population swelled from 5,000 in 1982 to almost 35,000 now. According to the latest FBI statistics, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes – mainly robberies and aggravated assaults – during 2008. In other similar-sized local towns the figures were much higher – 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. For property crimes – largely burglaries and thefts – Kennesaw recorded 555 while Dalton had 1,124 and Hinesville 1,802."

-- “Firearms are involved in less than 2 per cent of the crime around here,” confirms Craig Graydon, a police lieutenant who has served in Kennesaw for 24 years. “If nothing else, [the firearms law] draws a lot of attention to the importance of crime prevention.”

Again, why do other towns in the US not adopt / enact this type of law? PROVEN CRIME PREVENTION! The town officials didnt take the firearms away, they embraced them! Ok, I know that firearms do scare some people but, is it being scared that keeps this from growing? Or is it a Liberal, Socialist and Controlling mind-set that keeps this from growing?

I personally think this is an amazing law which has proven to be a part of lowerin crime rates and is also a great way in taking a stand for 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

[Firefighterchen]

It has been proven that Kennesaw, GA has among the lowest if not the lowest crime rate of any town its size in the country. Roughly 75% lower than the national average. That is a staggering number. Why? I feel it is because crimminals do not know if the person they are messing with has a firearm, because odds are they do and they can protect themselves.

This part is incorrect to me. Why is the crime so low? Because criminals know there are no easy victims...they know the person that is in that house has a gun and can kill them...and that is the same deterrent I use when I open carry. There is no "what if they have a gun?"

There are still bad guys there, just like everywhere, and its amazing that they aren't just shooting everyone first because "odds are" (aka they know) they have a gun. Just more evidence in my mind that, "if they know you have a gun you are target #1 and they will shoot first and ask questions later" is fear mongering bull####.

 

[fuhr52]

The questions I am posing are:
- Do people think this is a good idea?
- What is keeping other towns in our beloved country from enacting a similar law?
- Could the law if enacted in another town elsewhere in the country be overturned by federal or supreme court?

Yes I think it's a good idea. People that want the tools to protect themselves should have the opportunity to acquire them and learn how to use them.

What's keeping other towns from enacting similar laws, in my opinion, is the liberal leadership that has been in control for years. Liberals can't afford to have their subjects get the idea they can take care of themselves. Government is the only source of salvation. American individualism is a death blow to liberalism. Remember the words of our supreme liberal ruler "You didn't build that on your own".

Could the law if enacted in another town be overturned by the courts, again in my opinion, sure it can. The courts are a makeup of the political power at the time of appointment. Keep in mind, judges were lawyers in a former life. Most lawyers are liberals, most liberals hate guns, most gun grabbers are democrats, most cities are controlled by democrats. Connect the dots.

 

[Bikenut]

I think we need to get away from the idea that more laws are needed to "fix" things.

The simple truth is we don't need any more gun laws for or against gun control. What we need is to get rid of 99% of the gun laws we already have plus "fix" the judicial system so it punishes the criminal instead of the defender/defender's family... and the problem of criminals preying on innocents will tend to solve itself.

 

[Rooks1]

I think we need to get away from the idea that more laws are needed to "fix" things.

The simple truth is we don't need any more gun laws for or against gun control. What we need is to get rid of 99% of the gun laws we already have plus "fix" the judicial system so it punishes the criminal instead of the defender/defender's family... and the problem of criminals preying on innocents will tend to solve itself.

Bikenut- I like it.... almost a "dumb it down" or "K.I.S.S." situation... but do we have enough time before our country is a complete Obamination for a simple grass roots movement to unfold?

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

Having lived in Kennesaw, Georgia for over a decade after I left the military, I feel somewhat qualified to answer these questions.

The questions I am posing are:
- Do people think this is a good idea?
- What is keeping other towns in our beloved country from enacting a similar law?
- Could the law if enacted in another town elsewhere in the country be overturned by federal or Supreme court?

1) Absolutely. The law was passed in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' ban on handguns. Kennesaw saw an immediate and continued drop in criminal incidents since that time.
2) Absolutely nothing except mindset. It's easier to pass laws against things than to "force" people to hold themselves accountable. When people say, "There oughta be a law" it's usually in the context of a law against something.
3) Doubtful, the laws that are getting struck down are laws prohibiting actions or ownership normally.

Statistically, I would say that Kennesaw, GA is at least as safe as Morton Grove, IL
Subjectively, I felt much better having the ability to defend myself or others if needed rather than relying on the police to respond in time to take a report before I expired.

 

[K7lvo]

IIRC, Morton Grove's crime stats increased significantly after they passed THEIR law...

 

[dmaxx3500]

i lived in morton grove,crime really didn't go up,and it was really done to stop a gun store from being started in town,people that owned guns still owned them,,it was really a mout point

 

[K7lvo]

i lived in morton grove,crime really didn't go up,and it was really done to stop a gun store from being started in town,people that owned guns still owned them,,it was really a mout point

So a Morton Grove resident can still buy/own a gun, just like they could before the law was passed, the just have to go somewhere else in the state to buy it?

 

[eagleeyes]

i think all cities should have the same gun laws as kennesaw

 

[Capt Ahab]

I do not think that it should be "mandatory" anywhere including Kennesaw. I think we would be better off by enforcing the constitution and get the government out of mandating how people should live. The 2a needs to be upheld nationwide and it should be legal for anyone to carry a legal firearm anywhere they want. That would include any building, anywhere, anytime. Excluding a building with armed law enforcement like a court room or the secure area of an airport. Mental patients would need to be dis-armed, if deemed to be a potential threat.
We have to many politicians that think they know better than us how to run our lives ( do a search on mayor Bloomberg or Rahm Emanuel for proof ).
END of RANT OUT.

 

[rifleshooter474]

IMHO having a firearm handy is always a very good idea.

 

[Bikenut]

I do not think that it should be "mandatory" anywhere including Kennesaw. I think we would be better off by enforcing the constitution and get the government out of mandating how people should live. The 2a needs to be upheld nationwide and it should be legal for anyone to carry a legal firearm anywhere they want. That would include any building, anywhere, anytime. Excluding a building with armed law enforcement like a court room or the secure area of an airport. Mental patients would need to be dis-armed, if deemed to be a potential threat.
We have to many politicians that think they know better than us how to run our lives ( do a search on mayor Bloomberg or Rahm Emanuel for proof ).
END of RANT OUT.

I agree with you on everything except the part about the 2nd Amendment should be suspended in buildings where armed police are like courts or secure areas of airports. The presence of armed police should not have any effect on a person's right to bear arms. In fact, the presence of armed police should be totally and completely immaterial as to whether a person exercises the right to bear arms.

If we start thinking that way then it won't be long before there is a cop stationed in every building... even stores... and the 2nd Amendment would be canceled out just because there is armed police present.

 

[Capt Ahab]

I agree with you on everything except the part about the 2nd Amendment should be suspended in buildings where armed police are like courts or secure areas of airports. The presence of armed police should not have any effect on a person's right to bear arms. In fact, the presence of armed police should be totally and completely immaterial as to whether a person exercises the right to bear arms.

If we start thinking that way then it won't be long before there is a cop stationed in every building... even stores... and the 2nd Amendment would be canceled out just because there is armed police present.

OK that was easy. I would go along with that. In a weak moment I thought I would throw the Libs a bone.
What was I thinking.

 

[wolf_fire]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second just to see some people's answers to this. With this in mind, know that I personally believe that more guns equals less crime and I like that Kennesaw has a lot less crime, but crime isn't what the 2A is about. The 2A spoke of a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state. Now some could make the argument that a state is more free with less crime, but I believe our fore-fathers were making sure the federal government was not in power of the military against the people and therefore the people had the right to keep and bear arms to be free from governmental control.

My question I have to ask (as devil's advocate) is if a law is allowable that requires its citizens to go out and purchase something (such as a gun in Kennesaw)? Remember, that a LOT of posters in this forum said it was unconstitutional to force us to buy healthcare under Obamacare and that government could not force us to buy something. What are everybody's thoughts with this?

 

[Bikenut]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second just to see some people's answers to this. With this in mind, know that I personally believe that more guns equals less crime and I like that Kennesaw has a lot less crime, but crime isn't what the 2A is about. The 2A spoke of a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state. Now some could make the argument that a state is more free with less crime, but I believe our fore-fathers were making sure the federal government was not in power of the military against the people and therefore the people had the right to keep and bear arms to be free from governmental control.

My question I have to ask (as devil's advocate) is if a law is allowable that requires its citizens to go out and purchase something (such as a gun in Kennesaw)? Remember, that a LOT of posters in this forum said it was unconstitutional to force us to buy healthcare under Obamacare and that government could not force us to buy something. What are everybody's thoughts with this?

My answer that I already posted in post #4 and I quote myself:

I think we need to get away from the idea that more laws are needed to "fix" things.

The simple truth is we don't need any more gun laws for or against gun control. What we need is to get rid of 99% of the gun laws we already have plus "fix" the judicial system so it punishes the criminal instead of the defender/defender's family... and the problem of criminals preying on innocents will tend to solve itself.

 

[Big Dawg]

I equate this with the country of Sweden in that each household is issued a firearm and every able bodied person is taught to shoot and their crime rate is almost non existent as well. Both instances prove beyond a doubt that when the criminals know that their potential victims are armed they will go elsewhere and seek easier pickings. The Lib/Dems never mention or discuss these items as they know that it shoots holes in their stupid anti-gun agenda. The even ignore the FBI statistics each time they are released that show almosy all crime is at an all time low especially in those states that have shall issue laws whereas Chicago and Detroit have out of control crime. Why do you think that is ?

 

[Numenor]

I equate this with the country of Sweden in that each household is issued a firearm and every able bodied person is taught to shoot and their crime rate is almost non existent as well. Both instances prove beyond a doubt that when the criminals know that their potential victims are armed they will go elsewhere and seek easier pickings. The Lib/Dems never mention or discuss these items as they know that it shoots holes in their stupid anti-gun agenda. The even ignore the FBI statistics each time they are released that show almosy all crime is at an all time low especially in those states that have shall issue laws whereas Chicago and Detroit have out of control crime. Why do you think that is ?

Switzerland, not Sweden.