In the US can a city (town, village, etc) or even a state require every houshold to have a gun?
Of course not. They can try, but how do you enforce such a ridiculous dictum without violating the 4th Amendment at the very minimum while attempting to enforce the statute? I mean, they have to see the weapon to prove that you have it, and how do they do that if you don’t let them in the door?
They will name the town Polite, TX
Kennesaw, Georgia did in 1982.
I seem to recall something about a small town in Utah that required gunownership of its residence. I believe it was more to make a political point though, and doubt they ever tried enforcing it.
So, a never enforced law with no known penalty and loopholes for anyone who could possibly not want one? Yeah, real fine law there.
Geeze. I’m well aware that stupid political grandstanding is a tradition for every level of government, but can we at least pretend to respect the rule of law by leaving the most transparent ones to resolutions and speeches?
Hey, the OP didn’t ask for a good law; just whether such a law as described in the OP could be passed. 
It might be easier to start small–say, Somerset, Vermont.
That’s easy. Phrase the law so as to require every citizen to present evidence of gun ownership. If the citizen does not present evidence (presumably, showing the piece in question directly to the inspector), then that citizen faces whatever penalty the law sets. The inspector need never set foot inside the citizen’s house; the citizen could take the gun (or other evidence) to an office in city hall. In fact, this would be considerably easier to enforce than a gun ban (which have, of course, been enacted in many places), because it’s a lot harder to prove that you don’t have a gun.
Don’t need no stinkin law cause everbod round herebouts got more than a couple.
We’uns is all polite too. 
Except now you’re getting into the “right to privacy” and self-incrimination issues. The idea of mandatory ownership of firearms could never withstand scrutiny, hence the myriad of exceptions in the law Johnny L.A. brought up.
Leaving aside laws that are intended to make a political statement (like Kennesaw, Georgia’s) can any city or state make it manditory that anyone own anything? They can’t make you own a car, or a television, or even clothing. (Granted you couldn’t leave the house without clothing, but it’s theoretically possible if you have everything delivered.) Is there any law anywhere that required all citizens of some community to own a particular item?
Insurance is mandatory for car registration.
A really interesting question is, could a state revive the abandoned practice of requiring universal militia enrollment of it’s eligible citizens? As stated in the thread about the DC gun ruling, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8348763&postcount=161 there are some states with their own armed forces other than their respective National Guard units, although I don’t know if those are professional or volunteer.
Considering that the federal government already considers every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 a member of the US Militia I don’t see why a state couldn’t do the same. State’s have engaged in conscription in the past.
I would imagine that if such a law was set in place, there would be some workaround for citizens who didn’t want to own a functional firearm; someone would manufacture some device that was technically a firearm, but no more dangerous than a popgun.
- An example of this sort of thing happening: London taxi drivers were required by law to carry a bale of hay for their horse, but this law remained in place until 1976, by which time horse-drawn cabs had all long been replaced by motor vehicles. At times, very small bales of hay were manufactured to be kept in vehicles in order to remain within the letter of the law.
Do you have a cite for this? I’ve heard it several times, but it always sounds a bit far-fetched!
Sure, it does look exactly like UL-fodder doesn’t it?
It’s described here - NB: I’m not sure how reliable is the dumblaws.com site - I do know there are a lot of false ‘dumb law’ stories in circulation.
As I understand it, the miniature hay bales were manufactured when there was a dispute between taxi firms and local councils(who grant the cab licences and regulate the operation of the taxi firms) - I believe the purpose was to prevent the councils exploiting an archaic unrepealed law as an excuse to maliciously interfere with business.
Strictly looking at the United States, in the 21st century, practically speaking, no. However there is a very long history of compulsory military readiness that applies to all fighting-able members of the population in many societies in the past. While there was not often a specific weapon requirement you were expected to have some sort of martial instrument (or item easily used as such) when you were actually called up for service.
In the colonial era several colonies, most famously the ones in present-day New England had laws that more or less required each household/adult male be ready to perform militia service. Local laws often specifically stated a weapon-ownership requirement, some even going so far as to say if a person could not afford a weapon to comply with the law then they would be responsible for buying one on credit.
Under current law, of course.
The power to regulate includes both the positive and the negative. If a city (such as Washington DC or New York) has the legal power and authority to ban the possession of handguns, then that implies they also have the legal power and authority to REQUIRE the possession of handguns. The power to regulate can go either way.
I do understand that the Washington DC ban on handguns was overturned by a Federal Appeals Court (saying that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual to keep and bear arms), but we’ll have to wait for the Supremes final ruling on the city’s appeal to that decision.
Now, as to my opinion of the issue, I believe that cities do not have the legal authority to do either. Ditto for states or the US Congress.