Skip to comments.S.D. Bill Would Require Citizens to Buy a Gun
Posted on 02/01/2011 8:44:21 AM PST by george76
A bill introduced by five state legislators in South Dakota would require all citizens over the age of 21 to purchase a firearm "sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense."
The measure would not apply to persons who are legally barred from owning a firearm. The bill also does not specify the type of firearm citizens must purchase - only that it be "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsroomamerica.com ...
Sounds good to me.
They must be Ann Coulter fans.
If the government can force a man to buy an insurance product, why not a gun as well? Right dems?
Just to help finish off Obamacare.
What does the State Constitution say? Can they force people to buy anything?
If, as people of a conservative mind maintain, it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, wouldn’t it likewise be unconstitutional to compel them to buy a firearm?
Y’all know doggoned well that if such a measure passed it would be mere nanoseconds before another politician came along and demanded that, in the interests of fairness, those who have more than one gun start giving them away to those that don’t have any.
Depends. Is there a penalty for not buying one? Do they have the government tax services audit and attack and fine you.
Big differences - but I would guess over 90% of SD residents that can legally own a weapon already have one or more.
How about people who have a driver’s license but don’t own a car be forced to buy auto insurance? After all, they MIGHT drive some day.
Didn’t Kennesaw, Georgia do this way back when? I wonder if that precedent’s been cited in any of the Obamacare briefs.
The bill also does not specify the type of firearm citizens must purchase - only that it be "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference."
Full auto LWRC in 6.8, I think, is the only non-crew-served weapon that is suitable to my temperament.
Come now. Does what any old must document say truly matter? It’s for the common good, don’cha know.
Sometimes I just love living here in SD. Winters just suck though. ;0)
I think it is likely a symbolic gesture, pointing out absurdity by being absurd.
my "ordinary" self-defense worries about organized gangs of thugs with APCs
So I need something with a bit of AP ability like
-——wouldnt it likewise be unconstitutional to compel them to buy a firearm?———
Think on this a moment. If the law passes, everyone must go buy a gun. Do you thing Dashle will buy a gun or sue?
If he sues andd loses he will ultimately go to the Supreme court which will likely rule in his favor and establish a precedent. The state can’t force folks to buy stuff unless like car insurance it is required to facilitate the privilege to drive
Only one? :)
When you apply for a South Dakota drivers license, the fee will go up by about $200-$400. When your license is issued, you get a "free" gun as well.
*mandatory bang ping*
There is actually a much more solid Constitutional basis for doing so, under the Second Amendment and the state's duties regarding the Militia.
In the Federal Militia Act of 1792, male citizens were required to equip themselves with firearm and military gear:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
The state government doesn't have to rely on the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. Completely separate issue, since a different constitution is involved.
Having grown up in SD - this bill may lead to the sale of 5, maybe 6 guns. Most everyone in the state has at least a varmit rifle, a shotgun and the trusty old .22.
My fear is that ANY idiot who decides that they can dictate what a citizen can do - needs to be removed from office. We are Citizens, not Subjects.
This is an over-stepping of their authority, they have no Constitutionally authority of forcing us to purchase anythign - insurance, cars, firearms or T-shirts.
State governments, unlike the federal government, are not limited to the US federal enumerated powers ?
Assuming responsibility for a firearm is like singing. If you can’t do it capably and well, no one should encourage you to do it. It won’t end well
If it is truly a right, then it can’t be imposed by statute. It would be unconstitutional in same way commanding you to ‘speak your mind’ is unconstitutional. State constitution shouldn’t matter.
Don't get me wrong here; in no way, shape or form am I advocating for the mandatory purchase of health insurance. All I'm doing is pointing out the folly of this type of legislation; which even the guy who is proposing it admits.
I know the feds don’t have the right to force citizens to purchase a product. But I can’t believe a state can have this power.
What if the state of CA passes a law stating that I must buy a hybrid automobile? There’s got to be a limit on state power also.
I like the thought of everyone being armed for self protection but don’t like the state making laws telling me what I have to buy. If passed I doubt it’ll be enforced.
This is a twist on an older idea.
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack once proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state.
At least this order to own a firearm is Constitutionally based. I don’t find the same basis for Obamacare.
Nice thought, but largely redundant. Most SD citizens already have a gun.
How about a Federal law requiring all Americans to own a gun.
After all, Jefferson wrote, regarding ownership of guns by the American citizen, that it was “their right and duty to be at all times armed”.
Good enough for Jefferson is good enough for me.
I can be responsible with gun ownership, but I can’t carry a tune. So I guess I’ll stick with one and not the other. :)
And the bill would be unconstitutional.
Oh yeah, GREAT idea. /s
We really need folks who have neither interest or desire to RESPONSIBLY own a firearm being required to do so.
Easily penetrated in the sides and rear with M2 Blacktip .30-06 out of an M1903a3. Nasty effect of staying inside and zinging around.
Assuming responsibility for a firearm is like singing. If you cant do it capably and well, no one should encourage you to do it.But you do recognize that your children have the obligation, in school, to sing "mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmm, Barack, Barack, Obama, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmm", don't you?
I mean, that's constitutionally SOLID, that is.
Thanx. Ma Deuce penetrates too, but not with the style of the RPG :-)
Another reason to move to where my wife is from.
So, you’re in favor of allowing the government to compel a citizen to engage in behavior that it mandates?
How does that square with America’s founding principles?
Because the militia, composed of all free citizins, was part of the Common Law at the time of the Rebellion. Ans the Constitution clearly sees it continuing.
If obozo care is Constitutional, so is this. (I was trying for a bit of sarcasm)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.