In many places, buildings are required to have things like smoke detectors. However, no effort is exerted to ensure compliance except during construction.
For reasons that others have cited, I think there are a number of legal barriers to making mandatory gun ownership illegal. However, if the government wanted to issue gun, that’s an entirely different story.
I’m not sure I follow the logic; the state may, for example, ban people keeping crocodiles as pets; it doesn’t seem to be nearly so easy to accept that they might dictate that everybody must keep a pet crocodile. I suppose having the power and authority means they could, it just isn’t the neat mirror image of banning, that’s all.
I am a resident student at Kennesaw State U. (Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta 20-40 minutes out)
2.Merchandising on this law is already out. There is a bumper sticker that shows two revolvers and the caption reads “It’s the law in Kennesaw”
I guess that since I am not a home owner (One of the stipulations in the law I beleive) that I don’t have to carry a gun. Then again, I don’t think Kennesaw State would let me keep a gun either. :eek:
I have never actually seen the law in print, I would have to say that it is real. I’m not sure if it is enforced, or if it has even been taken off the books yet.
I think I read on a site of weird laws that either Vermont or Maine, the whole state, made people bring guns to church in the event of an Indian attack.
It seems to me that if we were to follow this logic a great many laws would be unenforcable, starting with such trivialities as dog licencing or liquor licencing. I mean, they have to see the licence to prove that you have it, and how do they do that if you don’t let them in the door?
Of course there are a great many laws of this kind that seem to function just fine. Usually they are simply written to say that you have to provide the evidence on demand. IOW they don’t have to see the dog licence or the gun in order to get a conviction. The offence of failing to produce the article when requested is every bit as serious as actually failing to have the article. That seems to neatly sidestep issues of the 4th amendment or self-incrimination while remaining both constiutional and enforcable. The crime becomes one of failing to provide what is required, rather than the crime of actually not having the article which would be impossible to prove fo the reasons you gave. From a practical standpoint of course there is no difference: you still either need to own the gun/licence or face the penalty. But legally there seems to be a world of difference.
I know the OP is focused on U.S. cities, but a Swiss-born friend of mine told me that in Switzerland all able-bodied males keep their rifle in good working order at home. I imagine in any other country with mandatory military service, it’s just as easy to require the soldiers (under military law) to keep their weapons in their homes. If nearly every home has a soldier, then nearly every home will have a rifle. If there were a U.S. draft intended to defend the country (vice invade someone else’s), you would likely see such a law passed.