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 ...
>I am shocked by how many Freepers don’t see the humor with this tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek proposal.
It may be humorous, but it also raises some very interesting issues.
>>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.
Arguably it IS provided for in their State 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.
{We are, IIRC, technically still at war with North Korea; a cease-fire is *NOT* the cancellation of the state of war.}
Paladin asked me to come up with a constitutional argument, which I tried to do (rather lamely at that). Doesn’t mean I agree with what I said. Just that someone will probably come up with something like that.
When I found out about what the Swiss men do to defend their country, I thought COOL - that explains how a little neutral country can stay free.
Give me a break- I’m an old lady trying to figure out what gun to buy. I’m thinking oozi.
Apples and oranges. There’s no constitutional mandate for health care, beyond that which the individual wishes to purchase.
Absolutely.
Okay. What if the state issues the weapon to citizens and residents of the state and then requires the individual to maintain the weapon in a state of readiness? Moreover, what if the state also allows certain exemptions for religious objections? Because that is essentially the law that Kennesaw Georigia passed in direct response to the Morton Grove gun ban in Illinois decades ago. After Heller Morton Grove rescinded their law and Kennesaw still stands. The mayor of Kennesaw even wrote the mayor in Morton Grove and asked that any confiscated firearms be sent to Kennesaw to be issued to citizens who couldn't afford to buy one themselves.
That’s the key: the compulsion to buy a gun was contingent on militia membership, which was limited to those who would naturally be expected to contribute to defense of the state which they are a citizen of, AND was matched by active organization and training by the government. Empowered to “call out the militia”, and the militia a subset of the population, the federal government is empowered to direct potential callees (today, anyone registered with Selective Service) to prepare by acquiring minimal equipment. It can all be traced back to an enumerated power.
Health insurance, however, cannot be so traced back to an enumerated power. If it can, then by all means SD can compel residents to buy guns; such is the nature of unlicensed consequences.
Excellent point.
I can make my own gun, but I am not allowed to self-insure.
Those who wrote and agreed to Section 8 proceeded to write and agree to the compulsion to buy arms. They knew what they meant by the former, and demonstrated that meaning in the latter.
I’d theorize that if the government is empowered to commandeer your time and energy for military service, they can direct some of that time and energy to earn or make the necessary equipment. They can either make me (17-45 white able bodied male) participate in a week of training, or expend a week’s labors on buying a rifle & accoutrements for training and service.
Alternate answer: given the power to tax for the purpose of buying military equipment to distribute to militia members, they can save the effort of taxing citizens a week’s wages and buying inventory and distributing guns to militia members, by just telling said members to buy their own.
Given there are alternatives to “buy”, such as “build”, “borrow”, “rent”, “inherit”, etc, the arguments against compulsory purchase diminish. Should such a law pass, and should complaint be raised, I’m sure the law would be adjusted to provide arms for the poor as a reasonable power of government. This in contrast to ObamaCare (holy crap, my iPad has that word as part of its dictionary!), where I am not allowed to self-insure or get charitable coverage, but instead MUST purchase a product.
So make your own.
This in contrast with ObamaCare, which does not let you self-insure.
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.