Posted on 02/01/2011 9:40:23 AM PST by Fawn
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
(Excerpt) Read more at community.history.com ...
“Well regulated” = “well trained” if I remember correctly.
Yeah, that makes it so much better. So if you don't have a problem with your state requiring you buy a gun then you also don't have an issue with your state requiring you to buy health insurance?
All it says is ‘shall provide for himself’, and ‘able-bodied’, presumably those who have been inspected and determined to be fit for service. Those who failed inspection would be exempt from the requirement.
I don’t own a gun, but this is constitutional, as opposed to Obamacare, which is not. The federal government cannot require you to purchase health insurance, but they can require you to possess means to form an armed militia.
There is no fine or penalty associated with failure to comply. As for slavery, I’m not really sure why the requirement for a well-regulated militia is the same as slavery.
Apples and oranges. As already stated, the state requires one to possess insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle.
One of the constitutional obligations of the state is to provide for adequate defense. Thus, the militia requirements would be constitutional. There is no such obligation of the state to provide health insurance for their citizens.
Nope - not saying that. It is unconstitutional to tell the people they have to buy something. Health insurance, Guns, big scary dog...the list goes on...
I wonder if this isn’t a red herring. If the argument that it’s unconstitutional to require all citizens to buy a gun proves its undoing either in the legislature or court, a precedent is set and the same argument can be directed at obamacare.
Whatever it meant, the founding generation passed a law in 1792 that required militia members to provide their own weapons - including swords, bayonets, muskets, etc. Period. We used to have a naval militia (might well still exist on the law books somewhere) - might be that heavy weps were provided by the state or feds. Personal weapons, not so much. That is the legal history.
If I have a problem with the State mandating it, I’ll move. It’s why I don’t live in Mass, I disagree with Romneycare.
How hard is it to understand that States have powers under the Constitution that the Federal Government doesn’t have?
This needs to be resolved soon. Otherwise, Obama may drag out the process until he has another opportunity for a court appointment.
It’s just as unconstitutional as your inability to realize that there’s a difference between the STATE government forcing you to buy something and the FEDERAL government forcing you to buy something.
The Federal Government is prohibited from this due to the Constitution.
The State Governments are allowed to do this due to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
This is a STATE GOVERNMENT proposing this law. Nothing wrong with it.
Prove it.
Prove to me that it’s unconstitutional for a State Government to require you to purchase something.
This isn’t the Federal Government doing this, it’s a State Government. They each have different levels of authority.
Yes its a JOKE people! “The lawmakers know the bill won’t pass and introduced it only to make a point related to the individual mandate in last year’s sweeping health care reform law”. The danger though, is getting the opposition (who surely doesn’t get it) all riled up. Something that started as a joke could morph into an anti-gun movement and we surely dont need that.
Now, making anything complusory (whether constitutional or not) can have drawbacks and unintended consequences. There’s a whole lot of folks out there that I’d rather not see armed. I much prefer to quietly accumuate my arsenal without raising anyone’s attention.
The feds made it compulsory for all able-bodied male white citizens to possess a rifle/musket and other weapons. Period. Militia Act of 1792. Wouldn’t hurt for us to do something like that again (with modern arms that is) - think Switzerland.
BTTT!
A requirement I can avoid by not driving. But there is no similar out allowed with this law. If I live in South Dakota and I'm over 21 then I have 6 months in which to buy a firearm. Period. The state is requiring that I spend my own money patronizing a private company to purchase an item whether I want it or not. I don't like that idea with health care insurance so why should this be any better?
Including the power to make up powers not outlined in their own Constitution apparently.
“It was constitutional because of the specific delegation of power in Article 1 Section 8.”
No, it wasn’t. The Congress may call forth the militia and they may raise and support an army, but by no means does that obligate anyone to buy anything towards such authorities.
How do you figure that? If SD wants to require every person in the State to own a firearm, and introduces a bill to that effect, how is that not in keeping with their Constitution?
If SD wants it, they’ll vote on it and accept it. Otherwise, they won’t. It’s none of our business, unless you live in SD. Gotta love a Free Republic like that.
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.