At 10:21 PM 8/10/96, Hallam-Baker wrote:

Sandy Sandfort wrote:

...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT In addition to the "exceptions," there was no penalty for violation of the law, thus making sure it was unenforceable. It was not a case of "pro-gun fascism" but of rough American political humor. At the very least it kept the city council out of more serious mischief.

Was there a bar against a person obtaining an injunction to force someone to purchase a gun or a provision providing that no liabilities would be incurred as a result of not owning one?

The law is much too important to start abusing to make political points.

This, of course, was my exact point. I don't buy the argument that Kennesaw (or whatever) was just making a symbolic point. If one community passes a law which mandates the ownership of guns, in contravention to the Second Amendment, then another community could ban ownership of guns, using the same logic and "general principal." (Several have, of course. I think such laws violate the Second Amendment, but apparently the courts do not agree.) And what of making a "citizen's arrest" of a "perp" who refuses to own a gun. I prefer not to have to guess which laws are real and which are merely posturing. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."