Brady Center v. City of Nelson, Georgia et al

And now for something truly surreal. The city of Nelson (population 1300) has passed an ordinance that requires all heads of household to keep and maintain a firearm.

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 and firearm, together with ammunition therefor.

Apparently, the school system could use some extra funding, but I digress.

Like the Kennesaw ordinance that presumably inspired it, the law contains no penalty for noncompliance and it exempts people with disabilities, felons, paupers, and those with beliefs that contradict firearms ownership. It’s a symbolic thing.

Of course, that doesn’t deter the Brady Campaign in the least, and they found a plaintiff to challenge its constitutionality. This is where it gets really odd.

Lamar Kellett lives in Nelson, and this is what he’s claiming for injury:

Because Mr. Kellett obeyed the law, the Firearm Ordinance forced Mr. Kellett against his will to purchase on April 23, 2013, a Remington model 1911, .45 caliber handgun for $646.59. It also forced him to purchase against his will .45 caliber ammunition for $32.09.

That’s pretty spendy, and certainly not the $150 beater gun I’d have expected someone to buy when they’re just trying to obey the law. People who just don’t want to get busted don’t buy comprehensive automobile insurance policies; they buy the cut-rate minimum liability stuff from those late-night TV commercials. Who wants to bet that Mr. Kellett seeks to recover exactly $678.68 in damages so he gets a free gun out of the deal?

Even stranger is the argument that his property values will be reduced.

Moreover, at least one study has established a direct correlation between gun ownership in a locality and the number of gun deaths in that locality. Upon information and belief, increased gun deaths in a locality may also have a negative effect on property values in that locality. Mr. Kellett has suffered further economic harm because the Firearm Ordinance makes Nelson a less-desirable location, thereby causing property values, including the Kelletts’, to decrease.

While the law provides an exemption for those who “conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,” Mr. Kellett claims that it’s a 1st Amendment violation to be forced to articulate that belief.

I can’t wait to see them argue this before a judge.