Who am I, Santa?
Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.
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 ...
While I’m a big supporter of the second amendment, I disagree with this bill.
1. The government should not have the power to force citizens to exercise their second amendment right, just as it should not have the power to force the citzens to lose it.
2. I’m a little happier knowing its awake patriots that are well armed, not every leftist Islamic sympathizer, union thug, and soccer mom who voted for Obama given the times that are coming.
Let’s not fall into this trap.
They’d better word it well. If it’s a mandate and compels them to spend money, it might be unconstitutions.
However, if they state issues you one that would be fine.
Every bit as Constitutional as ObamaCare’s requirement to buy health insurance...
Wouldn’t cover my Kimber.
Isn’t that like forcing people to buy health insurance? I’m not trying to be flippant. What’s the difference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pospolite_ruszenie
suggests that the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth not only allowed the ownership of weapons, but required the nobles (szlachta) to own weapons and to make themselves available for service if the country was attacked.
Maybe you needed to get a government issued permit to NOT own a weapon!
Who am I, Santa?
Don’t panic, TC. We paid cash.
ARTICLE XV — MILITIA
§ 1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the state of South Dakota shall consist of all able-bodied male persons residing in the state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as now are, or hereafter may be, exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state.
§ 2. Legislative provisions for militia.
THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE enrollment, uniforming, EQUIPMENT and discipline OF THE MILITIA and the establishment of volunteer and such other organizations or both, as may be deemed necessary for the protection of the state, the preservation of order and the efficiency and good of the service.
[...]
§ 7. Conscientious objectors.
No person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be compelled to do military duty IN TIME OF PEACE.
{IIRC we are still technically at war w/ N. Korea, so being a “conscientious objector” is not an excuse... possibly being female would be.}
>I think it is likely a symbolic gesture, pointing out absurdity by being absurd.
The truly amusing point is that this isn’t really absurd at all — if they are trying to be absurd, then it is quite telling that their proposed law is both reasonable and Constitutionally supported: http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-15-2
Actually they CAN prescribe, by law, that one must possess a firearm IF THAT PERSON IS IN THE MILITIA... and *many* are who do not even realize it:
SD Constitution
ARTICLE XV — MILITIA
§ 1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the state of South Dakota shall consist of ALL ABLE-BODIED MALE PERSONS RESIDING IN THE STATE, BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND FORTY-FIVE years, except such persons as now are, or hereafter may be, exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state.
§ 2. Legislative provisions for militia.
THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE enrollment, uniforming, EQUIPMENT and discipline OF THE MILITIA and the establishment of volunteer and such other organizations or both, as may be deemed necessary for the protection of the state, the preservation of order and the efficiency and good of the service.
[...]
§ 7. Conscientious objectors.
No person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be compelled to do military duty IN TIME OF PEACE.
>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.
There is, it’s called the State Constitution.
This is why it REALLY is important to ensure that State Statutes are indeed subordinate, and in no wise contrary, to the State Constitution.
For example I was recently called to the State Courthouse for Jury-duty, on the wall by the door it says “NO UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS” or somesuch; so, I called the jury-info department of the Court and asked under what authority this came from, and the answer I got back is: “I CAN’T FIND ANYTHING ABOUT IT.”
And if they *did* find a law regarding it, the state Constitution says, in part: “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense” and a little later: “No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
If my Jury duty were in a County court, rather than in State, you bet I’d vociferously be adamantly opposed to being disarmed illegitimately; as it is, apparently I should appeal to the judge citing the repeated USSC rulings that Law Enforcement cannot be held as obligated to provide for the safety of any private citizen; and therefore the guards have no obligation to protect me while I am serving as a juror.
>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.
Then how can your right to speech be imposed/infringed upon by either perjury or slander, both of which ARE covered by statute?
So I need something with a bit of AP ability like
>So, you’re in favor of allowing the government to compel a citizen to engage in behavior that it mandates?
Isn’t that, to some extent, the idea behind [criminalizing] perjury?
>How does that square with America’s founding principles?
Well, there is the Militia Act of 1792, which mandated that those enrolled in the militia furnish their own equipment AND mandated enrollment.
Wait until some other states' [Montana, Wyoming and Arizona come to mind] legislatures copy and pass it.
With improvements.
How does that square with America’s founding principles?
United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code, §ection 4.
Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Turn in your neighbor as an unpaid governmental informant, citizen. Or go to jail and remain a convicted felon.
Your government should not have the power to compel your participation in any behavior, whether it’s one you agree with, or not.
If you agree with a law compelling gun ownership, then you believe in something other than a representative, constitutional republic, with unalienable rights guaranteed to the sovereign citizens, and only limited powers granted to a central government.
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.