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

[Patranus]

While a law requiring everyone to buy a bible would be unconstitutional due to the first amendment, a state law requiring all militia members to keep and own a gun would not be.

Where does the Constitution states that a state cannot establish a religion?

 

[xj0hnx]

Where does the Constitution states that a state cannot establish a religion?

Really?

 

[Scotteq]

Where does the Constitution states that a state cannot establish a religion?

Did someone flush the First Amendment down the toilet when nobody was looking?

 

[drebo]

Did someone flush the First Amendment down the toilet when nobody was looking?

A state cannot make a law in violation of the Federal Constitution. This means that a state cannot establish a religion.

However, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that says a state cannot mandate owning a gun, or owning anything else. A state would be perfectly legitimate to pass a law which required its residents to own a gun, insurance, a dildo, steel balls for their truck, a blow up doll, or anything else.

A problem would arise, however, if the SD law says a person must own a gun made by a specific manufacturer, for instance, "everyone must own a Colt .45". That would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

 

[drebo]

Ah ok. So all != all. Like in the health care bill.

You're comparing apples and eggplants, here.

One is a state law, the other is a federal law. States have rights that the federal government does not have.

A state can pass any law as long as it does not violate the Federal Constitution and its amendments. The federal government can ONLY pass laws within the the bounds prescribed in the Federal Constitution, unless it amends the constitution, which requires the agreement of a majority of states.

Big difference. If a state passed a law that required its residents to purchase health insurance or face a fine, that would be perfectly constitutional. The federal government, however, does not have that authority.

 

[Patranus]

A state cannot make a law in violation of the Federal Constitution. This means that a state cannot establish a religion.

However, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that says a state cannot mandate owning a gun, or owning anything else. A state would be perfectly legitimate to pass a law which required its residents to own a gun, insurance, a dildo, steel balls for their truck, a blow up doll, or anything else.

A problem would arise, however, if the SD law says a person must own a gun made by a specific manufacturer, for instance, "everyone must own a Colt .45". That would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

The only thing specifically listed in the 1st amendment is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

in fact many states had official religions and were no in violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[JSt0rm]

what if you are a quadriplegic?

 

[Scotteq]

what if you are a quadriplegic?

Use the Universal Healthcare plan to graft on a mind~controlled prehensile dick? D:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The only thing specifically listed in the 1st amendment is


in fact many states had official religions and were no in violation of the 1st amendment.

And they'd be struck down. See Article 6, the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Scotteq]

The only thing specifically listed in the 1st amendment is


in fact many states had official religions and were no in violation of the 1st amendment.

Key word being "Had"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[QuantumPion]

Where does the Constitution states that a state cannot establish a religion?

Actually you are right now that I think about it. When you incorporate the 2nd amendment, the wording "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", leaves no room for state legislatures to do anything. But the 1st amendment only states that congress shall make no law. It does not explicitly state "the right to freedom of religion shall not be infringed". However I think if it went to the supreme court it may be reinterpreted that way.

 

[Zargon]

And even if this bill did pass, it would be ruled unconsitituional for pre-empting the Gun Control Act of 1968.

how?

it doesnt contradict ANYTHING in the GCA

 

[JulesMaximus]

That's unconstitutional. Why are lawmakers in South Dakota wasting their time on nonsense like this anyay?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's unconstitutional. Why are lawmakers in South Dakota wasting their time on nonsense like this anyay?

I said the same thing about the health care mandate, but here we are.

 

[boomerang]

That's unconstitutional. Why are lawmakers in South Dakota wasting their time on nonsense like this anyay?

What's unconstitutional? The gun ownership, the bible ownership or the health care plan?

With so many conversations going on in this thread I need to know what you're referring to.

 

[JSt0rm]

Use the Universal Healthcare plan to graft on a mind~controlled prehensile dick? D:

WE can do that!?!?!?!

Ahhhh modern medical breakthroughs :sneaky:

 

[ElFenix]

It would only be the same if they got taxed for not having one

I don't think this should be mandated, but I think you'd find SD would become the safest state in the Union, and no not by killing everyone. It would be a nightmare because the anti-gun people would suddenly find their opinions invalidated, which would be awesome. :awe:

SD nearly already is the safest state in the union. only ND is noticeably safer according to the violent crime map on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg

 

[JSt0rm]

Where does the Constitution states that a state cannot establish a religion?

ahhhh you are a stupid fuck aren't you? ()

 

[JulesMaximus]

What's unconstitutional? The gun ownership, the bible ownership or the health care plan?

With so many conversations going on in this thread I need to know what you're referring to.

Gun ownership and certainly bible ownership. You cannot force someone to own either of those two things by law.

As for the health care plan...I don't know. I haven't read the word of that law so I guess we'll just leave it up to the courts to decides. I can't see how providing something like healthcare could be even remotely similar to the first two though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

SD nearly already is the safest state in the union. only ND is noticeably safer according to the violent crime map on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg

That's because nobody fucking lives there.

 

[bfdd]

Gun ownership and certainly bible ownership. You cannot force someone to own either of those two things by law.

As for the health care plan...I don't know. I haven't read the word of that law so I guess we'll just leave it up to the courts to decides. I can't see how providing something like healthcare could be even remotely similar to the first two though.

States aren't the Feds. They can make laws and regulations up and beyond that of the Feds.

 

[nobodyknows]

That's because nobody fucking lives there.

That's per 100,000 people so how many people live there is irelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

[PrinceofWands]

That's per 100,000 people so how many people live there is irelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

No, actually it matters GREATLY because crime is largely proportionate to population (and density). In other words, even if nothing else changed, just populating SD to the same level as NY or CA would instantly propel it to roughly the same level of crime. More people = more crime (raw numbers, and rate).

I don't believe anyone has ever established a purely causal relation however. Instead, it seems to be other accompanying factors like increased numbers at a lower SES, increased competition for resources, etc. Though there is also a LOT of support for a causal interplay with density...ie packing people in close together rather than giving them space seems to increase crime even when other factors are accounted for.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Actually you are right now that I think about it. When you incorporate the 2nd amendment, the wording "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", leaves no room for state legislatures to do anything. But the 1st amendment only states that congress shall make no law. It does not explicitly state "the right to freedom of religion shall not be infringed". However I think if it went to the supreme court it may be reinterpreted that way.

Patranus is incorrect. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states thru "incorporation". For anyone who's read or taken a class in constitutional law, a classic example is Barron v. Baltimore, where a person sued the govt. and the Supreme Court ruled at the time that the Bill of Rights (specifically the 5th Amendment against taking property without just compensation) didn't apply to the states.

 

[Zargon]

No, actually it matters GREATLY because crime is largely proportionate to population (and density). In other words, even if nothing else changed, just populating SD to the same level as NY or CA would instantly propel it to roughly the same level of crime. More people = more crime (raw numbers, and rate).

I don't believe anyone has ever established a purely causal relation however. Instead, it seems to be other accompanying factors like increased numbers at a lower SES, increased competition for resources, etc. Though there is also a LOT of support for a causal interplay with density...ie packing people in close together rather than giving them space seems to increase crime even when other factors are accounted for.

yes just like how crime rates go up when during a heat wave