Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

Community History ^ | Jan. 31, 2011 | unknown

[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.”

[Jagermonster]

This is not a requirement to purchase. This is a requirement to procure. Most of us would just go out and buy, because we like to buy shiny new tools, but some would barter, some would make it themselves, some would borrow.

A fine difference, but a difference nonetheless.

[paladin1_dcs]

Actually, a better analogy would be to compare this to Romneycare up in Mass.

If you don’t want it, move. Same with the S.D. Gun bill.

I swear, understanding the concept behind the 10th Amendment isn’t that hard.

[crusty old prospector]

Have you not seen this? Muslims shoot guns but not very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-KaUl_olo

[paladin1_dcs]

Good point.

Also, given that a “well regulated militia” is actually specifically mentioned in the Constitution, I can see very easily how this kind of bill could be easily supported.

Better point though. The equipment mentioned in the 1792 Milita Act was military grade, including bayonets. So when do we get the full milspec toys? I want a M240 or a Ma Duce.

[K-Stater]

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.”

So if the health care law is unconstitutional then how can this be constitutional?

[RKV]

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is how. And the state constitution in question. Notice - specific delegation of the power. Unlike Obamacare.

[paladin1_dcs]

Because it’s a State mandating it, not the Federal Government.

This is the same as Romneycare up in Mass. The States aren’t restricted from doing this, just the Feds.

Read the 10th Amendment.

[Little Ray]

Sounds good to me.
Gun stores and manufacturers should off an “SD Special”: an AR-15 or AR-10 type weapon, six magazines and 1000 rounds of ammo at a special low price.

Talk about a polite society...

[RKV]

ROFLMAO. Switzerland on the prarie. Next thing your know they’ll start making watches and chocolates.

[monocle]

Now that is what was intended by a ‘well regulated [militia]cavalry’.

[dmz]

The part of Article 1 Section 8 that you don't seem to be paying any attention to is the part that is suggests that the fed is to provide for organizing, arming, and organizing ... the militia.

Where are you reading that it is constitutional to require a member of the militia to buy his own weaponry. I've missed it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

isn’t that a little like trying to force people to buy insurance?

t'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.

The difference is that the states have different authority than the federal government has; proof that the feds have jurisdiction is indicative that the states do not have jurisdiction, and vice versa. So in the ObamaCare case, the feds assayed to prove that they were regulating interstate commerce. If so, that would deprive the states of jurisdiction - at least, to whatever extent the feds exercised that jurisdiction, surely. Otherwise there would be conflicts between the Feds saying "Jump!" and some state government saying, "Don't Dare Jump!"

The state can require what the fed cannot require.

The reason that the Feds were within their right to require the purchase of a militia-suitable firearm and the not to require the purchase of health insurance is, IMHO, that national defense is a core Federal mission not requiring an "interstate commerce" rationale, whereas regulation of health insurance is not, and does require external justification.

If the state required a firearm for personal self defense, that would be a different mission than opposing an invading army - and therefore the state might require a pistol while the Feds might require a rifle.

[RKV]

I never said that, nor is federal law (including the constitution) all that is relevant - state law (and the SD constitution) is as well.

Own, possess, yes. Buy? Not in Article 1 Section 8. That said, in 1792 (the founding generation) passed the militia act. That federal law said (in part).

"shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet"

States laws are going to say whatever they say, and as long as consistent with the federal and state constitutions, they are plainly enforceable.

[Jack Hydrazine]

When Kennesaw enacted their law in 1982 for each head of the household to own a gun the crime rate plummeted.

25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Expect to see the same there if it passes.

[dmz]

Sorry, my use of the word ‘buy’ was unfortunate. Procure, possess, whatever word choice works better than buy I’m OK with. But it does not change the text in section 8, wherein the fed will arm the militia (unless you have some other way of interpreting “To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia).

[Jack Hydrazine]

“Why can’t we be more like Switzerland?”

So we can freely own full-auto firearms? I agree!

Get rid of all gun permits to carry concealed and be able to own (and carry) full-auto arms.

I can handle that!

[RKV]

The feds didn't historically arm all of the militia. Heavy weps might be state owned or they might be individually owned - like canon. Rifles, swords, pistols, spontoons, horses!, etc. were, under the act of 1792, privately owned.

To end speculation, I suggest you read the law...http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Here's a representative snippet...

'Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols."

[sagar]

“The law said “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.””

So, according to the act, only white males are required to enroll in the militia.

[tutstar]

Rush said the dems would have a cow if the pubs tried to pass a bill requiring everyone to buy a gun. Wonder if he knew of this?

Same with healthcare. You can’t make us buy anything, it’s unconstitutional.

[Cyman]

I am shocked by how many Freepers don’t see the humor with this tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek proposal.