The state cannot force people to purchase an item from another entity.
Much as I hate to say so. I think it would do us all good if everyone were armed.
It’s satire. Tongue-and-cheek. A wink and a nod.
Much less threatening than ObamaCare of course because the people of the state can overturn it with a referendum, or those who they can move to another state.
| The founders were alive and in the legislature in 1792 when the Militia Act was passed. They knew what was in the Constitution. Specifically Article 1 Section 8 and I quote (in part). |
| "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" |
| The Militia Act of 1792 is completely consistent with that objective. Again I quote in part... |
| " 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" |
| http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm |
Depends upon the states constitution, doesn’t it?
>It’s just as unconstitutional as ObamaCare.
>The state cannot force people to purchase an item from another entity.
>Much as I hate to say so. I think it would do us all good if everyone were armed.
Possibly not; your argument depends on if ‘purchase’ {or some synonym} was the exact word in the law, as the exact text is not shown that might not be the case and the following words would have the same effect: ‘obtain,’ ‘possess,’ & ‘acquire.’
Art 1, Sec 8 Says, in part:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress
Requiring possession of a firearm certainly is ‘arming’ the militia; but of even more import is that this is a state law: many states have laws requiring the purchase of insurance, such as automotive, and if this makes it into law then a court striking this law down opens *ALL* other coerced purchases to repeal by setting the precedent.