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?
Because unlike Obamacare, which is a Federal law and affects all States, if you disagree with the SD bill, you can move to another State and be none the worse for wear.
If you live in S. Dakota. If you are ‘able bodied’. If you are a man. If you are between 21-45.
The state doesn’t care if you *buy* the gun, so long as you own one.
Constitutionally the state has the obligation to provide for the defense of it’s citizens. South Dakota has chosen to do this by requiring men to own a firearm.
Once you have the firearm, your obligation is finished. You can get a decent firearm for around 300 bucks.
With Obamacare, you are never finished. You don’t get 6 months. You have to pay every year.
What do you think the first thing that is going to happen with this bill? People who own shotguns are going to register them in the name of their other male family members to qualify for proof of ownership.
Other gun owners are going to offer auctions for guns, so that everyone who doesn’t already own one will be able to get one for a reasonable price.
>>As already stated, the state requires one to possess insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle.
>
>A requirement I can avoid by not driving. But there is no similar out allowed with this law.
Yes there is: become a felon or other ‘prohibited person.’*
*You may be able to get the Court to issue a restraining order upon yourself for “domestic violence,” which does not require a jury trial yet *does* prohibit you from purchasing firearms.
So make your own.
This in contrast with ObamaCare, which does not let you self-insure.