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 ...
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.
To force me to buy a gun and learn how to use it might go against my religion and my right to protect myself as I see fit, which doesn’t involve a gun. So, that law would be a violation of my constitutional rights because the individual State is circumventing those rights. Another example: Most airports are on land owned by local govts. How does TSA have jurisdiction to demand that I submit to their invasive search procedures? Why isn’t my state protecting me from the feds on things that really matter (unreasonable search)? The tangled web of federal and state/local mandates and rights of the people are bound to collide soon.
The Congress in 1792 disagreed with you under the specific provisions of the Militia Act. I think they knew more about what was Constitutional than you do. Or I do for that matter. You might actually google that up and read it before you answer. It’s not that long.
Yes.
If you are trying to make a point it might be better if I wasn’t someone open to privatizing roads, fire departments and public libraries.
lol.
The founding generation passed a law in 1792 requiring all able-bodied male citizens to possess militia arms. There were no religious exemptions in that law. Putting your butt on the line was the price of being a citizen. I suspect strongly that they knew what the Constitution said. Certainly better than some here at FR.
“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”.
Wasn’t this the same state legislature that responded to the smoke gnatzie proposed smoking ban by introducing a bill to outlaw the sale of tobacco in their state? They didn’t pass it, but it brought out all the opposition to actually banning tobacco. The opposition ended up being the ban proponents because they get their funding from tobacco taxes.....
I gotta love these guys.
Fill in the blank. No thanks, says me. Next thing ya know, the gubbmint will make me buy insurance. No Thanks!
FMCDH(BITS)
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.
Even Mennonites have them for varmint hunting. And they are pacifists.
I’m frankly shocked that so many are in opposition to this measure. It’s 300 bucks once, and that’s if you can’t get one from someone else who already owns one. Heck, if only my car insurance were so cheap, and only needed to be paid once.
States are different from the Fed.
Depends upon the states constitution, doesn’t it?
Depends upon the states constitution, doesn’t it?
Plenty of historical ignorance on display. That’s not to say ObamaKare is constitutional btw. Different story that.
| 10 USC 311 |
| TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES |
| Subtitle A - General Military Law |
| PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS |
| CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA |
| Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes |
| -STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. |
| (b) The classes of the militia are - |
| (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and |
| (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. |
| Nota bene: state militias organized under state constitutions and state laws are in ADDITION to the federal militia and have been since the founding. |
>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.
>Individual mandate, likely unconstitutional.
Perhaps it is, see below:
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.
Now there is a “War on Terror,” yes? And a “War on Drugs,” right? (and to be technical we are still at war w/ N. Korea, IIRC.) — ;)
>The government should not be able to force people to do that. Anymore than force them to buy healthcare insurance.
Given the above, there is some Constitutional support for requiring the arming of the Citizens.
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.