Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun..
02-01-2011, 09:31 AM
#1
I still like honda's. :-/
Thread Starter
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.”
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.
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.
“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.
:bowdown:
02-01-2011, 09:56 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-01-2011, 10:02 AM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: oakland, ca
Posts: 58,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like a waste of money and time to prove a point.
---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------
At first I thought it was San Diego...I said, hecksa no.
---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------
At first I thought it was San Diego...I said, hecksa no.
__________________
.
.
02-01-2011, 11:06 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 5,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be interesting if this passes. The current challenges to the Health Reform law actually have some bearing on this -- if the courts decide it is unconstitutional for the law to mandate buying insurance, it would also follow that it would be unconstitutional to mandate someone buy a gun. But if they decide the insurance mandate is constitutional, wouldn't a gun ownership mandate also be allowed?
But seriously though, requiring people to own firearms it teh stoopid. If people don't want to own a gun, they are unlikely to spend appropriate time in training or learning safety procedures, and I feel that firearm accidents would go way up.
I also originally thought San Diego based on the thread title, and I was very confused as to why a Cali city would be requiring gun ownership.
But seriously though, requiring people to own firearms it teh stoopid. If people don't want to own a gun, they are unlikely to spend appropriate time in training or learning safety procedures, and I feel that firearm accidents would go way up.
I also originally thought San Diego based on the thread title, and I was very confused as to why a Cali city would be requiring gun ownership.
Last edited by JGordon; 02-01-2011 at 11:17 AM.
02-01-2011, 11:49 AM
#9
Nobama
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 6,961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be interesting if this passes. The current challenges to the Health Reform law actually have some bearing on this -- if the courts decide it is unconstitutional for the law to mandate buying insurance, it would also follow that it would be unconstitutional to mandate someone buy a gun. But if they decide the insurance mandate is constitutional, wouldn't a gun ownership mandate also be allowed?
But seriously though, requiring people to own firearms it teh stoopid. If people don't want to own a gun, they are unlikely to spend appropriate time in training or learning safety procedures, and I feel that firearm accidents would go way up.
I also originally thought San Diego based on the thread title, and I was very confused as to why a Cali city would be requiring gun ownership.
But seriously though, requiring people to own firearms it teh stoopid. If people don't want to own a gun, they are unlikely to spend appropriate time in training or learning safety procedures, and I feel that firearm accidents would go way up.
I also originally thought San Diego based on the thread title, and I was very confused as to why a Cali city would be requiring gun ownership.
The healthcare mandate is unconstitutional because it is beyond the powers of congress.
Now, due to the 10th amendment, a state can have a mandate. the amendment says "all powers not specifically given to the federal government, or restricted to the states are reserved by the states" or something very close to that.
Effectively any power not given to the fed, and not specifically denied to the states, are fair game to state governments.
Seriously, the constitution is 14 pages of a book that fits in my pocket. Not exactly hard reading.
Last edited by BetterBob; 02-01-2011 at 12:03 PM.