One city resident, Harold Kellett, does not suffer from any physical or mental disability, he is not destitute; Mr. Kellett has never been convicted of a felony, nor does he object to owning a weapon on any philosophical or religious grounds. Mr. Kellett simply does not want a gun in his home. As such, Mr. Kellett was forced to purchase a firearm, under the threat of a $1,000 fine.
Luckily for Mr. Kellett, he is a member of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which has filed a lawsuit against Nelson, on the grounds that the town's mandatory gun ownership law is unconstitutional.
Specifically, the Brady campaign asserts that this law infringes on the constitutional rights of the residents of Nelson in four ways, citing three amendments (Second, First, Fourteenth) and one constitutional principle (right to privacy):
A) SECOND AMENDMENT (Right to Bear Arms) -- The Second Amendment, in its most individualistic interpretation, affords an individual the right to own a gun for his own personal protection. The argument that seems to be made by Brady's attorneys here (if I read it correctly) is that the Second Amendment also gives individuals the right not to own a gun, if that is how they decide to protect themselves. This position is akin to the First Amendment argument currently being used by cigarette manufacturers in their fight against the FDA's requirement that they put 'graphic imagery' on all packs of cigarettes sold in the US. The cigarette companies claim that the first amendment not only gives them the right of free speech, but protects them from being compelled to speak -- or in this case, put a picture of a dying lung cancer patient on their product.
B) FIRST AMENDMENT (Free Speech) -- Brady's attorneys have channeled the above-mentioned thinking in their complaint by stating "Freedom of speech includes freedom to act or not to act." By requiring, in lieu of purchasing a firearm, that a resident identify himself as member of one of the exempt groups (disabled, destitute, a felon, or morally opposed to gun ownership), the statute "forces individuals to impugn their own mental abilities, stigmatize themselves as impoverished, or profess to having beliefs including religious beliefs, different from other members of their community."
C) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (Equal Protection Clause) -- The statute requires that the 'Head of Household' maintains a weapon in his or her home. As such, this law creates two classes: heads of households and non-heads of households, who are treated differently under the law. The law turns the non-heads of households into "second-class individuals [who] have no input into the decision whether guns are brought into their homes." For example, a non-head of household could fit into one of the exempt groups, but no consideration for this is made.
D) THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY -- Lastly, the attorneys for Brady cite precedent establishing a constitutional "zone of privacy," protecting the sanctity of one's home. By forcing a resident to bring a firearm into his or her home, the statute is in potential violation of this principle.
C) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (Equal Protection Clause) -- The statute requires that the 'Head of Household' maintains a weapon in his or her home. As such, this law creates two classes: heads of households and non-heads of households, who are treated differently under the law. The law turns the non-heads of households into "second-class individuals [who] have no input into the decision whether guns are brought into their homes." For example, a non-head of household could fit into one of the exempt groups, but no consideration for this is made.
D) THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY -- Lastly, the attorneys for Brady cite precedent establishing a constitutional "zone of privacy," protecting the sanctity of one's home. By forcing a resident to bring a firearm into his or her home, the statute is in potential violation of this principle.
