Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

[aGameOfThrones]

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

*****************
Another source:

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, it is a part."

Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

[B]"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

[Anti Federalist]

I remember the screeching and wailing that accompanied this back in 1982.

It was right around this time that I was becoming politically "active", mostly because of 2nd Amendment issues like this.

[RCA]

I've never heard of this law. This is awesome!

[Flash]

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/36/guns.gif

[Pericles]

Random thought: I wonder how often the police get the wrong address in this community?

[oyarde]

Random thought: I wonder how often the police get the wrong address in this community?

Excellent point .

[cindy25]

this law is wrong. the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, a right; it is not an obligation. I doubt if Ron Paul supports it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

this law is wrong. the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, a right; it is not an obligation. I doubt if Ron Paul supports it.

Agreed. You have an individual right to own a gun and a right not to own a gun.

[kah13176]

this law is wrong. the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, a right; it is not an obligation. I doubt if Ron Paul supports it.

Of course it's wrong. I don't think that's the reason why this was posted. This simply shows that there is an inverse relationship between gun ownership/gun laws and crime rates.

[ghengis86]

Nevermind

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

//

[Wesker1982]

yep, the law is unjust but the results are still interesting (but not surprising)

[BamaAla]

yep, the law is unjust but the results are still interesting (but not surprising)

Cosign. Although, if we must have unjust laws, I'd prefer this rather than the opposite.

[Vessol]

I don't agree with mandatory gun ownership, but I can't argue with the results and what they bring to the table in debates with those who advocate gun control.

[Humanae Libertas]

Someone should forward this to Ed Schultz.

[t0rnado]

Instead of a law that forces property owners to have guns, others towns and cities could offer property tax credit for gun owners.

It would be worth it to reward(less punishment) tax credits to property owners with guns because it would cost the town less in law enforcement.

[noxagol]

I don't think this law is enforced all that much probably. I think this town was in a stossel episode. It being there is more or less a warning to criminals that says "In every house is probably a gun, so unless you want to risk death, don't break in".

[Heimdallr]

Well you don't have to support the law to agree with the results. The point is, is that this demonstrates that increased gun ownership by responsible citizens decreases crime. Perhaps people will smarten up and we won't even need these laws.

[aGameOfThrones]

I don't think this law is enforced all that much probably. I think this town was in a stossel episode. It being there is more or less a warning to criminals that says "In every house is probably a gun, so unless you want to risk death, don't break in".


He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.

Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.

The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.


Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a)

In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Sec. 34-22. - Use of firearms.

No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

[pcosmar]

He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.

Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.

The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.


Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a)

In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Sec. 34-22. - Use of firearms.

No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

No, you shouldn't NEED a law.
But Ownership should be actively encouraged rather than discouraged. I also notice that this addresses the correct use of the General Welfare Clause.

The early militia was a duty and expected of citizens, but still had an "out" for those that objected.
It was considered civic duty. Somewhere along the line people got lazy and hired mercenary gunmen to carry guns for them.

[Travlyr]

Somewhere along the line people got lazy and hired mercenary gunmen to carry guns for them.

I'm not positive, but I think that happened in 1861.

[buck000]

What do you folks think about this perspective (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less_common.html)? It actually talks of a positive correlation between violence and gun ownership, but is at least honest in saying that no causal relationship can established.

Perhaps there's some other variable that makes Kennesaw, GA, different? E.g., respect for property, basic moral goodness in terms of violence to one another, high average income, etc.?

I have pistols loaded with JHPs in my safe, 'just in case', so I obviously agree with the Kennesaw viewpiont. I just find this issue interesting to discuss.

[nobody's_hero]

In colonial times, townsfolk were required to join the town militia in order to protect against the natives—except those, who were morally opposed to taking up arms.

Similarly, that's what Kennesaw's law does, and if we are to have laws, they should be made in this fashion:

"Obey this law, unless you have a moral conflict with it." :)

[nobody's_hero]

What do you folks think about this perspective (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less_common.html)? It actually talks of a positive correlation between violence and gun ownership, but is at least honest in saying that no causal relationship can established.

Perhaps there's some other variable that makes Kennesaw, GA, different? E.g., respect for property, basic moral goodness in terms of violence to one another, high average income, etc.?
I have pistols loaded with JHPs in my safe, 'just in case', so I obviously agree with the Kennesaw viewpiont. I just find this issue interesting to discuss.

Well, there is that old saying: "An armed society is a polite society."

[Travlyr]

What do you folks think about this perspective (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_violent_crimes_more_or_less_common.html)?

For me, a Harvard study is not credible. I would need to see a study conducted by independent researchers.

[osan]

this law is wrong. the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, a right; it is not an obligation. I doubt if Ron Paul supports it.

First off, there is an out for anyone who doesn't want to comply. I spoke with the mayor back in 93, give or take. He was out of office at that time and working as a barber. Anyhow, I recall him telling me that the point of the law was not to FORCE anyone to have a gun so much as to let everyone know it is strongly encouraged. Had force been the issue, the loophole would not have been added.

For the record, the ACLU ultra-sucks on 2A issues.

[osan]

I don't think this law is enforced all that much probably. I think this town was in a stossel episode. It being there is more or less a warning to criminals that says "In every house is probably a gun, so unless you want to risk death, don't break in".

It is not enforced AT ALL, to my knowledge. That was never the purpose. The intent was to make clear language WRT the issue of owning a firearm.

One needs to look at this circumspectly and from some distance - a law is passed requiring gun ownership in every household, yet provides a gaping wide loophole that renders the law 100% unenforceable. HELLO - what can we take away from this? The authors were idiots? Perhaps, but methinks it is more along the lines of a message to the citizens, as well as placing an obstacle in the path of any future officials who might get some cute ideas about banning firearms ownership in that hamlet. Gun ownership being a REQUIREMENT certainly guarantees that those wishing to keep arms will be able to do so and that the city council will not be easily able to restrict the right down the road.

Eyes open - brains in gear. :)

[osan]

In colonial times, townsfolk were required to join the town militia in order to protect against the natives—except those, who were morally opposed to taking up arms.

Similarly, that's what Kennesaw's law does, and if we are to have laws, they should be made in this fashion:

"Obey this law, unless you have a moral conflict with it." :)

Well stated.

[mac_hine]

Bump for relevance.

[TonySutton]

Here is a link to the Stossel video from a 20/20 episode

http://www.msunderestimated.com/2007/05/john-stossel-on-gun-control-myths-video/

[itshappening]

why did the founders make it a right to bear arms and not an obligation? I'm sure they would have had that debate.

[TonySutton]

why did the founders make it a right to bear arms and not an obligation? I'm sure they would have had that debate.

Yes it was debated and the language tweaked several times before being approved. When discussing the 2nd amendment I always like to refresh myself on this link.

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I can attest to this. Very peaceful in Kennesaw.

[nobody's_hero]

why did the founders make it a right to bear arms and not an obligation? I'm sure they would have had that debate.

Maybe they did have that debate.

“... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

I'd rather see a blurring of lines between 'rights' and 'duties' than a blurring of lines between 'rights' and 'privileges'.

"it is their right, it is their privilege, if they can get permission, to throw off such Government."

Well, that doesn't have quite the same ring to it, you know?