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

[boomerang]

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

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.”

This really made my morning whilst looking out into a sea of snow. You'll have to read the article to get the full understanding. At this point, there are no plans that I know of to require citizens to buy a Bible too.

 

[Scotteq]

Repost - Doesn't stand a chance. Politician making a point about health insurance being mandatory in the same fashion under Obamacare.

Stupid point and a waste of time.


/thread

 

[boomerang]

Laugh a little from time to time. They say you'll live longer.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

 

[xj0hnx]

Repost - Doesn't stand a chance. Politician making a point about health insurance being mandatory in the same fashion under Obamacare.

Stupid point and a waste of time.


/thread

It's a great point, and most certainly not a waste of time. When the government starts mandating what the citizens have to buy we are lost. People lost sight of that with the health care debate because gee, everyone loves health care.

But hey look at the bright side, once everyone has health care, it won't matter that everyone is shooting everyone, we'll all be covered!!!!

 

[drebo]

Repost - Doesn't stand a chance. Politician making a point about health insurance being mandatory in the same fashion under Obamacare.

Stupid point and a waste of time.


/thread

Not applicable. This is a state law. States CAN mandate this sort of thing (think about car insurance).

 

[Scotteq]

Repost - Doesn't stand a chance. Politician making a point about health insurance being mandatory in the same fashion under Obamacare.

Stupid point and a waste of time.


/thread

Not applicable. This is a state law. States CAN mandate this sort of thing (think about car insurance).

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.

Reading Comprehension For The Win.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not applicable. This is a state law. States CAN mandate this sort of thing (think about car insurance).

Just ask Kennesaw GA.

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

 

[drebo]

Reading Comprehension For The Win.

He's an idiot, then.

There's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits a state from passing this type of law.

There may be something in the SD Constitution, but if that's the case, his point is moot anyway since the SD Constitution != the US Constitution.

 

[ericlp]

If that law passes you better sign up for two bibles your gonna need em.

 

[her209]

Point? Massachusetts already did this. You know, in regards to health insurance...

:awe:

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

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If this amounts to a tax penalty for not owning a firearm (like the "mandate" for health insurance) I am in full support of this.

 

[matt0611]

If this amounts to a tax penalty for not owning a firearm (like the "mandate" for health insurance) I am in full support of this.

The congress doesn't have the power to directly tax people without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration unless its taxing in apportionment to incomes.

 

[drebo]

Point? Massachusetts already did this. You know, in regards to health insurance...

:awe:

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

I'm not sure why you think a law that requires all residents of a state, who are not already barred from doing so, to own a firearm violates a law which restricts who can own a firearm.

This state law isn't in conflict with that federal law.

 

[Scotteq]

The congress doesn't have the power to directly tax people without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration unless its taxing in apportionment to incomes.

Pretty sure that went out the window a long time ago.

 

[her209]

I'm not sure why you think a law that requires all residents of a state, who are not already barred from doing so, to own a firearm violates a law which restricts who can own a firearm.

This state law isn't in conflict with that federal law.

The article makes no mentions of any exclusions.

 

[Scotteq]

I'm not sure why you think a law that requires all residents of a state, who are not already barred from doing so, to own a firearm violates a law which restricts who can own a firearm.

This state law isn't in conflict with that federal law.

The article makes no mentions of any exclusions.

Bolded the Relevant wording for you.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Just like Saddam's Iraq

 

[her209]

Bolded the Relevant wording for you.

That's in the bill being proposed?

 

[drebo]

The article makes no mentions of any exclusions.

You don't even have to open the article, it's right in the quoted portion in the OP:

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.

 

[Scotteq]

That's in the bill being proposed?

Yes


And as already pointed out: The bill was only introduced to highlight the (ruled in Federal Court, yet still being fought over) Unconstitutionality of the mandate in the Healthcare bill penalizing people for not buying health insurance. Even the writers of the bill acknowledge it will be.. shot down...

 

[drebo]

Yes


And as already pointed out: The bill was only introduced to highlight the (ruled in Federal Court) Unconstitutionality of the mandate in the Healthcare bill penalizing people for not buying health insurance. Even the writers of the bill acknowledge it will be.. shot down...

Right, but the problem is that the bill they proposed is NOT unconstitutional.

Hence why I said they're idiots.

It may not PASS, but that is far different than passing and being ruled unconstitutional.

 

[her209]

You don't even have to open the article, it's right in the quoted portion in the OP:

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

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:

 

[xj0hnx]

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:

Their opinions have already been invalidated numerous times. The sun set of the AWB, no rivers of blood, Kennesaw GA, no rivers of blood, cities with strictest gun control also cities with highest levels of violence. Pretty much everywhere that has a right to carry, violent crime drops.