Further Militia Thoughts

Back in 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance that is rather famous, or infamous, depending on where you stand on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Recently, another Georgia town, Nelson, is said to be contemplating a similar law; as I understand it, Nelson has one police officer who works days, and despite the fact that it is in a pretty rural area where just about everyone is armed anyway, some city officials feel that they had best grab the bull by the horns.

The Gun Rights Movement being the monolithic pawn of the National Rifle Association it is, every knuckle dragging, bitterly clinging redneck in the country is cheering them on, right?

Ha!

Would Mandatory Gun Ownership Laws Violate Citizens’ Constitutional Rights? | Video | TheBlaze.com

This tack has been taken on many internet fora, on each of which there is sure to be at least one hand-wringer bemoaning the lack of willingness to compromise away our Constitutional rights; the thing is, on this topic -- mandatory firearms ownership, that is -- the people refusing to compromise are just as likely to regard such measures to be an infringement of people's rights as the compromisers.

In response I usually point to clause (b) of the Kennesaw ordinance above, which does, after all, exempt someone who just doesn't want a gun in their house, but Professor Reynolds has also answered the question WOULD MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP violate citizens’ constitutional rights?

No, because it’s an exercise of Congress’s power to arm the militia under Article I, section 8. In fact, the Militia Act of 1792 required adult males to own guns and ammunition.

{Edited when I finally didn't have a cat trying to sit on the keyboard to correct the effects of same.}