January 22, 2017

City Won’t Enforce ‘Must Own’ Gun Ordinance

The City of Nelson, Georgia, gun law


(GunNews.com) — The City of Nelson, Georgia has agreed to settle a Brady Center lawsuit against the City’s mandatory gun ownership ordinance.

Under the settlement, which the City Council unanimously approved, the City will amend the ordinance to say that the gun ownership mandate cannot be enforced and that there will be no penalties for non-compliance.

The ordinance as originally enacted on April 1, 2013 required all heads of households in Nelson, with certain exceptions, to own a working firearm and ammunition.

The Brady Center brought suit against the City on May 16, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, arguing that the ordinance violated the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The suit was filed on behalf of a member of the Brady Center, who faced a $1,000 fine for non-compliance with the city rule.

Lamar Kellett, a Nelson resident and Brady Center member who opposed the ordinance, said, “I am glad an acceptable solution has been reached and feel that those Nelson residents that wish to keep home protection a private matter will be pleased with this outcome.”

The Nelson City Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 to accept the settlement terms and add a clause to the Family Protection Ordinance, codified at Section 38-6, Chapter 38, Article I of the Code of the City of Nelson.

The amendment will say that the existing terms of ordinance “are not enforceable and shall never be enforced and no disability, penalty or adverse consequence shall attach to any violation thereof” because “the Constitution protects the rights of Americans to choose not to own or maintain a gun in their homes.”

Georgia city agrees to gut law mandating gun ownership

26 Responses to “City Won’t Enforce ‘Must Own’ Gun Ordinance”
  1. AD Roberts says:

    My guess is that Lamar Kellotts NAME is MUD right now. With the arrogance of such people, I bet he will try to run for office.

  2. Hector Mendez says:

    Wonder how the anti-gun crowd like unconstitutional laws rammed down their throats. Whats good for the goose is good for liberal gustapos. Wish more local govt would pass pro gun laws that keep the antis busy. Gotta wake up your representative in congress, make YOUR wishes known.

  3. Bill says:

    Isn’t it ironic that those who want to take away the very rights the 2nd Amendment protects, ie the Brady Center, are using that same 2nd Amendment that was written into the Constitution to protect our rights to keep arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to not own firearms. This is not written, should not be assumed to be part of, nor does the 2nd Amendment even infer that this part of the Constitution has anything to do with the right to “not own firearms”. Yes, I agree it does violate the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments and you can bet that with this victory, the Brady Center will get right back to trying to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights even though they want to improperly us it in this case. Go figure. Once again, liberal hypocrisy at it’s best. I felt the ordinance would be challenged and proven unconstitutional and I think it is a very far stretch to thing the City of Nelson could, or even should, try to force people to own a firearm. Contrary to lawyers, creative thinkers, average citizens and some in law enforcement, IT IS THE JOB of law enforcement to protect the citizens of the United States and the collective states and territories. That is part of the oath. Can we do it 100% of the time: NO and we all know that but it is our responsibility at law enforcement officers to put forth the greatest effort humanly possible to do so. And you are welcome, I take my oath seriously and do the absolute best job possible in upholding that oath of office.

    • howell clark says:

      they have now trapped themselves into a box canyon and we need to keep them there

    • MSST8DOG says:

      If you will look into it, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the citizens unless there is a prior relationship with same. Prior relationship being defined as: “If you are in custody, the police are required to protect you”. However, they have no such obligation to the general public.

      I personally disagree with this, but when you get ultra-liberals in Congress and in courts that is where it leads.

      Lock and load my friends. Maybe we should all identify our neighbors who disagree with gun ownership and just put signs in our yards with an arrow pointing to them and worded similar to this: They do not believe in guns, I do…

  4. Steve F. says:

    The reason behind these laws is that, under Georgia’s home rule legislation, if the city requires firearm ownership, it is more difficult for the State to later enact a law prohibiting or restricting that ownership. If the City requires all citizens who are not otherwise prohibited or don’t desire to own a firearm, to maintain a firearm, the State would have more difficulty denying the citizens of that town that right afforded under home rule. Community, family and self-protection is a concern in many locales which do not have a police force and the county sheriff’s deputies are minutes away,… when seconds count. I wish my town had such an ordinance.

  5. John W says:

    How can it be enforced? And why should anyone be forced to own a firearm? All American’s have the right to own a firearm. We should challenge those who would deny us that right. We are American’s we have the RIGHT to choose what we do and not be forced to comply with government mandates. We need to challenge cities like Chicargo and New York who limits or deny us the right to choose.

  6. Lochlyn Grendelsson says:

    Sounds like someone needs to read USC Title 10 … and the Georgia Constitution.

    • Wary of Barry says:

      Say what? Specifically 10 USC Section 331?
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      Kellet could be over age 45…

  7. TK says:

    what an ignorant law requiring every idiot to own a gun. We can’t even control the idiots with guns now and you think it’s best every moron out there had one? smdh

  8. James Long says:

    It’s interesting that the rown of Kennesaw, geaorgia has had a “Must Own” law in effect since 1982 with no interferance from the Brady Bunch.Check it out on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia under “Gun law”. Sounds like these guys just chickened out because they didn’t want to spend the money to fight.

    • Blacksheep007 says:

      I lived in Kennesaw for a couple of years under that law. The difference was that, like the famous Chicago suburb that enacted the first such law in the US, the law as written incorporated the “non-binding”, “non-enforceable” wording that the city of Nelson is being required to add. No fuss, no bother. Nelson just rushed a bit too quickly and neglected to “CYA”.

      P.S. – I selected Kennesaw as my residence because of that law and the principle it demonstrates. “I’m the NRA!”

  9. Mike says:

    Ironic that Lamar Kellett has identified himself publicly as being defenseless. I will be sad when the news report comes out in which he and/or his family are victimized by the people he protects with his misguided thinking.

  10. Roger says:

    One would have to expect the Brady Bunch to oppose any “Common Sense” gun legislation.
    anyone who owns a gun should put a sign on their front (and back) yard stating that their property and home are protected by the Second Amendment. That way the criminals will know which homes are easy and safe targets.

    • wllharrington says:

      I disagree. Pass a law requiring anyone opposed to owning a gun display one or more signs on their property stating ‘There are no guns in this house. Leave your guns outside when you come to rob us because we will not resist It takes the police 20 minute to answer a 911 call so yo will have plenty of time to get away.’ this way the crimina does not have to worry about some irate gun-toting citizen shooting them.

      • LAWMAN says:

        So true yet these foneys will not do as one would expect. I say if you don’ t like my guns then move to chicago or newter york. they would love you not wanting guns in your home for protection…………….. Anybody for a tea party………………The redcoats are comming…..ooops! are here…………….

  11. Jim Ball says:

    Enacting stupid laws/ordinances such as the one by Nelson, GA make supporters of the Second Amendment and gun ownership look like the fringe elements that Obama and other antigun advocates say call us.

  12. JRHowosso says:

    Can we get a sign for Lamar’s yard?????

  13. John Danza says:

    This law isn’t unconstitutional for the same reason that Obamacare wasn’t unconstitutional. The $1,000 for non-compliance isn’t a fine, it’s a tax. And we learned from the Supreme Court that the government can force you to purchase a product or service and tax you if you don’t. The attorneys for Nelson, Georgia either gave up early or weren’t particularly bright, as they could have used the liberals’ own words to defend this law.

  14. Peter Gunn says:

    Brady Bunch uses the Second Amendment to prove it’s case. Isn’t that ironic.

  15. Don845 says:

    As it was written, it would have to lead to programs and BS. So those that can’t afford one, with prices today, can, and so on. With ammo availability and prices? If somebody wants to wait a half hour after their 911 call, for a body, the Police, Sheriff, State, to come and not protect them, but society as a whole, they have the right to be unprepared and ?

  16. Ken Dobbins says:

    We have to realize that laws work both for and against us. When I first heard about this law, I thought that it was most likely unconstitutional but I was for it anyway. The City did the right thing by not trying to fight the Brady Bunch but I don’t like that they had to give in.

    • howell clark says:

      like you i backhandedly approved of the sentiment behind the the ordinance when it got approved, but i really believe that those that do not want to own shouldn’t and that they should totally accept the consequences thereafter of having to depend upon the authorities for there protection or demise which ever arises first. brady folks were correct but i think the fact that they had to tolerate gun ownership by those that desire to and the wording that they agreed to will haunt them in the future when they push for total control.

Leave A Comment

!!! Comments that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be published. !!!

 characters available