PDA

View Full Version : Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun


tankarian
02-01-2011, 4:59 PM
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.”
----------------------
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
Complete story here (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun)

Hehe! Nailed it :D

Jack L
02-01-2011, 5:02 PM
The midwest is smarter than CA.

Shiboleth
02-01-2011, 5:03 PM
Interesting way to make a point. I think his point is going to be buried underneath the fact that his bill deals with guns. Anyone think this will be quoted out of context by a Brady as an example of how liberal gun laws are becoming?

bob7122
02-01-2011, 5:06 PM
go out and be somebody vote! :43:

Window_Seat
02-01-2011, 5:09 PM
Sorry, but it says "right" of the people, not "requirement" of the people.......,,, Although I like the intention, it will pass as much muster as the individual mandate in BHOCare. :D

Erik.

NightOwl
02-01-2011, 5:12 PM
Actually, Obama said it best:
if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.

yellowfin
02-01-2011, 5:55 PM
Hmm. What gun should everyone have? A Remington 870 perhaps? Or maybe a basic AK? Or a 1911?

kf6tac
02-01-2011, 6:00 PM
it will pass as much muster as the individual mandate in BHOCare. :D

Erik.

It probably could pass more muster, since state governments are not bound to act within the specific categories of limited powers listed in Article I of the federal Constitution in the same way that Congress is.

Laser Sailor
02-01-2011, 6:02 PM
Actually, Obama said it best:


Did he really say that? Who does he think he is? When will (most) people (Obama included) realize that the president has no legislative powers. He can't mandate anything.

a1c
02-01-2011, 6:13 PM
Idiotic.

Cali-Shooter
02-01-2011, 6:16 PM
Hell freaking yeah. I think I found my next favorite US state, after AZ.

Ford8N
02-01-2011, 6:17 PM
The Dakotas are very good states with a lot of common sense. :43:

wildhawker
02-01-2011, 6:18 PM
kf6 is correct, and even Congress has a historical precedent for similar acts. Those who think otherwise should read the entire Constitution, and some founding-era history.

BigDogatPlay
02-01-2011, 7:33 PM
The Commerce Clause, upon which so much federal regulation is leveraged with, wouldn't be pertinent to a solely in state requirement either, I'd imagine.

Of course the last time I checked, all 43 people who actually lived in South Dakota were all hunters and shooters anyway.

:D

Blackhawk556
02-01-2011, 8:29 PM
If obamacare wouldn't have passed, why they still have introduced this bill??? If yes, why?

Blackhawk556
02-01-2011, 8:31 PM
^^^Nevermind, I read the entire article

EWILKE
02-01-2011, 8:39 PM
That would be awesome all the libbys would be breaking the law.

Luieburger
02-01-2011, 10:31 PM
Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.

A good way to make a point. I like it.

Window_Seat
02-01-2011, 10:50 PM
Hell freaking yeah. I think I found my next favorite US state, after AZ.

Yeah, but it's so DAAAAANNNNNG windy, and in the middle of January late at night when the cold north wind is blowing... BRRRRRRRR.... If you went target shooting at that time, the bullet would freeze and shatter upon impact against the micro ice within the air, and be blown in a different direction in the Spring & Summer from all those big tornado's. :eek:

Erik.

Liberty1
02-01-2011, 11:07 PM
kf6 is correct, and even Congress has a historical precedent for similar acts. Those who think otherwise should read the entire Constitution, and some founding-era history.

Merely reading Heller will do the same.

vincewarde
02-02-2011, 1:04 AM
This was litigated some time ago when a town in GA passed a similar law. I believe it was upheld by the courts.

Let's not forget that it is the state that has the power to raise militia and also the power to require any citizen to assist law enforcement. So right there you have two reasons why the state could require you to own a gun. They probably could tell you what caliber it has to be. 150 years ago, when being called into militia service was a very real possibility, such laws were common.

bigstick61
02-02-2011, 1:13 AM
This was litigated some time ago when a town in GA passed a similar law. I believe it was upheld by the courts.

Let's not forget that it is the state that has the power to raise militia and also the power to require any citizen to assist law enforcement. So right there you have two reasons why the state could require you to own a gun. They probably could tell you what caliber it has to be. 150 years ago, when being called into militia service was a very real possibility, such laws were common.

Yup, the States and Congress by mandate has the power to require those who are designated the militia by law to own weapons and ammo and also equipment suitable for that purpose. I don't think South Dakota's bill would pass that muster, though.

Redchevyman
02-02-2011, 2:00 AM
This was litigated some time ago when a town in GA passed a similar law. I believe it was upheld by the courts.

Let's not forget that it is the state that has the power to raise militia and also the power to require any citizen to assist law enforcement. So right there you have two reasons why the state could require you to own a gun. They probably could tell you what caliber it has to be. 150 years ago, when being called into militia service was a very real possibility, such laws were common.

Kennesaw Georgia has the law that requires all able bodied lawfully eligable adults to own a firearm for home security.

drexotic
02-02-2011, 8:34 AM
This is not all that crazy . . .

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.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

drexotic
02-02-2011, 8:36 AM
As my childhood friend who now lives in Georgia reminds me, it has happened before !!!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html?cat=17

Firearm Ownership is Mandatory for All Households in Kennesaw, Georgia
25 Years Later, "Gun Town USA" Continues to Maintains Exceptionally Low Crime Stats
By C.T.
Do you know that if you live in the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, you are required to have and maintain a firearm?
On May 1, 1982, a new ordinance was passed by the city council of Kennesaw. This law ( Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms) made it mandatory for each household to own and maintain a gun, as well as ammunition. Not only was the ordinance passed by city council, it was a unanimous decision. The ordinance states the gun law is needed "In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." Of course, exclusions were made to convicted felons, people with religious objections, and people with disabilities.
Members of the city council introduced and voted for the ordinance to make a statement when a city in Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns.
Both city ordinances drew worldwide media attention, with Kennesaw's attention being negative. Nicknamed "Gun Town USA" from a column titled the same and written by Art Buchwald, expectations were for the town to covert back to the Old West style of handling disagreements with ruthless shoot outs. This expectation never happened. In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared.
In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the crime rate has increased, especially right after the ban.
Putting a ban on owning a firearm may keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens but will it put them at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their families and possessions? Criminals who do not abide by laws anyway, will still possess handguns. If you were a criminal planning on breaking into a home to steal or cause somebody harm, would you choose a home in a city where every homeowner is required to carry a gun and ammunition or a home in a city where homeowners are banned from carrying guns?

dfletcher
02-02-2011, 8:40 AM
While I like the item involved, no - it isn't a good idea. The folks who introduced the bill know it's going nowhere and used it to point out the foolishness of the government requiring folks to purchase healthcare. The government should not require folks to purchase such products, I think that's the point being made.

motorhead
02-02-2011, 8:42 AM
when i see "s.d." i think san diego. as you can imagine, i thought the world had suddenly gone SANE!

wildhawker
02-02-2011, 8:55 AM
While I like the item involved, no - it isn't a good idea. The folks who introduced the bill know it's going nowhere and used it to point out the foolishness of the government requiring folks to purchase healthcare. The government should not require folks to purchase such products, I think that's the point being made.

But it can, especially in the context of militia arms - so what point is being made here?

OC-Indian
02-02-2011, 9:04 AM
The legislation should be changed:

All citizens will be required to pay for and pass a firearm saftey and competency course before the issuing of a drivers license. At the age of 21 or over, the cost of the course will then pay for a government supplied firearm, to be issued to every individual once a background check is completed. (Choice of 12ga shotgun, .38 revolver, or 9mm semi-auto.)

drexotic
02-02-2011, 9:14 AM
When I read the first story I fully understood what the statement was that the SD folks were trying to make and that they were not serious about the law passing. I was amused by their efforts, however.

It was only later that I heard about Kennesaw, GA and how they had passed their law requiring the head of every household to own a gun and keep ammunition. Their law was similarly passed to make a statement but has turned out to be a very positive situation for the people living there.

drexotic
02-02-2011, 9:18 AM
. . . a government supplied firearm, to be issued to every individual once a background check is completed. (Choice of 12ga shotgun, .38 revolver, or 9mm semi-auto.)

Bit politically correct, don't you think?

Why not a 12 ga, 45 ACP / 40 S&W semi-auto handgun or a AR15 ??? ;)

Jack L
02-02-2011, 9:19 AM
SD has more balls than CA.

xXBigJoeXx
02-02-2011, 10:01 AM
WIN!!

CHS
02-02-2011, 10:33 AM
As a hardcore 2A advocate, I love the spirit of this law, but I don't like laws like this that force you to buy something you don't want to. Ultimately, I am very opposed to this. Even though I love the statement they are making.

I look at it this way: Those that enjoy guns are already going to be buying guns. Those that hate guns won't, no matter what the law says and it is unfair and a violation of their freedoms to FORCE them to buy a gun.

Conclusion:
Awesome statement, terrible law.

wildhawker
02-02-2011, 10:41 AM
Being a bad policy doesn't make something impermissible under a state or the Federal constitution.

The bill's author made a serious flaw in proposing something that *could* happen as an example of what he believed was outside the powers of the government.

renzoku
02-02-2011, 11:34 AM
Hmm...

I has gun, I has temporary housing...

I can move to South Dakota! Neat!

mtptwo
02-02-2011, 11:37 AM
The government forcing the people to exercise a right is as retarded as the government denying a right.

cmichini
02-02-2011, 11:37 AM
The midwest is smarter than CA.

A dried turd found in a park is smarter than most of CA.

Wherryj
02-02-2011, 11:42 AM
Interesting way to make a point. I think his point is going to be buried underneath the fact that his bill deals with guns. Anyone think this will be quoted out of context by a Brady as an example of how liberal gun laws are becoming?

It will most likely not be seen due to the 2A issue. We can, however, just wait for the federal bill requiring families to purchase a Government Motors vehicle the next time GM stock tanks...

mtptwo
02-02-2011, 12:25 PM
The government forcing the people to exercise a right is as retarded as the government denying a right.

fpeel
02-02-2011, 12:28 PM
I look at it this way: Those that enjoy guns are already going to be buying guns. Those that hate guns won't, no matter what the law says and it is unfair and a violation of their freedoms to FORCE them to buy a gun.

But think of the irony involved. THE IRONY, DAMMIT! :rolleyes:

MP301
02-02-2011, 12:32 PM
The government forcing the people to exercise a right is as retarded as the government denying a right.

I guess you missed the entire point. Go back and read the Orig. post. They know its BS, they are trying to show that the healthcare bill is in the same BS catagory...

Ok, if this passes, do poor people get free guns from the state??? LOL!

NightOwl
02-02-2011, 12:57 PM
Did he really say that? Who does he think he is? When will (most) people (Obama included) realize that the president has no legislative powers. He can't mandate anything.

I think I didn't convey my point properly, and thus coming across as misleading.

Yes, Obama did say that. It was back in 2008 when he was against an individual health care mandate, and that was part of his arguement against it. Here's a link to a story about that: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-judge-cites-quotes-president-rul

With a more complete quote from Obama: “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

Sorry for getting off topic with this one, folks, just wanted to clarify my first post in the thread so as to not cause confusion.

Also, in regards to MP301, I'd support that. Nothing fancy, maybe an inexpensive little .38 or a Hi-Point 9mm or what not. It's a better use for tax dollars than 99% of the things they spend it on right now anyway.

nicki
02-02-2011, 2:10 PM
Kennesaw Ga. passed a similar law right after Morton Grove Ill. banned handguns.

Kennesaw's law did have exemptions for non compliance, if South Dakota followed the Kennesaw model, it iwll pass legal muster.

Personally I think it is possible that states could require MANDATORY ARMS ownership and with that, MANDATORY MILITIA DUTY.

In the early days of our country, ownership of suitable arms suitable for militia duty and Militia duty was MANDATORY.

No difference between Militia duty and Jury duty in my eyes.

Nicki

Archie B.
02-02-2011, 2:18 PM
It makes sense; the police are not obligated to provide personal protection for every citizen. It`s impossible as they can`t be everywhere all the time. Most if not all the time you see police presence is after an incident has occured.

wildhawker
02-02-2011, 3:34 PM
The government forcing the people to exercise a right is as retarded as the government denying a right.

Why do you think such a mandate has anything to do with your right to keep and bear arms?

People really need to read the entire constitution, and not just those snips which support your worldview and a few laudable amendments.

CalBear
02-02-2011, 5:01 PM
My comment submitted to Huffington Post.

I don't have a strong stand on this issue, and I'm for reforming the healthcare system, but anyone who compares the constituti*onality of this legislatio*n or car insurance mandates with that of a healthcare mandate doesn't really understand the Constituti*on.

The Constituti*on is formulated like this:

Rights of individual*s are protected against government abuse.
Congress is given certain powers necessary for it to operate.
All powers not given to the US, nor prohibited to the states by the Constituti*on, are reserved for the States or the people.

A state can mandate car insurance, because it reserves all powers neither granted to the US, nor prohibited by individual rights guarantees*. The Congress cannot mandate healthcare purchase, because it is given no such power (except in a thoroughly distorted interpreta*tion of the Commerce Clause).

Apples and Oranges.

jamesob
02-02-2011, 10:22 PM
sounds good since the govnt is forcing us to buy health insurance or be fined. the bill should be buy a handgun or be fined 500.00 every week you do not comply.