Craig CO wants to "Require homes have a modern sporting rifle"

http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/...g-craig-state/

Quote:

---

Craig — Craig resident Craig Rummel appeared before the Craig City Council on Tuesday night with a unique proposal.
Citing years of attacks by the Colorado General Assembly on the industries that drive Craig and Moffat County’s economy — namely coal, power and hunting — Rummel asked City Council members to consider passing an ordinance requiring heads of households within Craig city limits to maintain a modern sporting rifle capable of accepting high-capacity magazines.

---

How about that! [Beer]

I get it, but no

Sure, why not? Those types of proposals are always non-binding anyway. More symbolic than anything. I say go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowbeyond

I get it, but no

---

Why not? It's a bold statement than anything else.

"A draft of Rummel’s proposal included exemptions for those not physically or mentally capable of operating a firearm; financially unable to afford purchasing a firearm; who have been convicted of felony; and who oppose owning a firearm for religious or other personal reasons."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Why not?

---

We're either for government intrusion, or we're not. I don't think there's much consistency in supporting the intrusion when it's something I like, but being against intrusion when the proposal runs counter to my beliefs.

Going to agree, hatidua. I like it, but it's the same as saying you can't have one.

Good quote:
“The state of Colorado is the laughingstock of the country,” Jones said. “We’ve passed an amendment legalizing marijuana that violates federal law and we’ve passed gun laws that violate the Second Amendment. I don’t think passing an ordinance requiring all residents to own an AK-47 is the type of attention Craig wants.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CroiDhubh

Going to agree, hatidua. I like it, but it's the same as saying you can't have one.

---

No, it isn't. If the gov bans you from having or possessing it, you can't have it, and there are penalties for having one. If they say you must have one but not really for a variety of reasons, you don't have to have one and there's no penalty for it.

I understand the sentiment against passing symbolic laws you really aren't going to enforce, but it's not like it's costing anything. Again...it's just a statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldFinger

Good quote:
“We’ve passed an amendment legalizing marijuana that violates federal law and we’ve passed gun laws that violate the Second Amendment. I don’t think passing an ordinance requiring all residents to own an AK-47 is the type of attention Craig wants.”

---

The first sentence is ok. But the second is not. It's reactionary. No where does it state you must have an AK-47. He's using that particular gun to elicit a visceral, emotional response so others will oppose it.