South Dakota "must buy gun" Bill

[jeremy]

Great, I have the cops all butt hurt, now I have the militree mad at me.

That's cause you are a Brit...

Nobody likes a Brit Barrister...

 

[MTC]

IMO it is certainly constitutional as far as the federal constitution goes.

As far as the federal Constitution is concerned this bill is mandated.

Hmmm. Startin' to like these Barristers.

Weeeelllllll, mebbe there is something . . .

Indeed, continue.

Anything? No, too broad. Anything not militia related (guns, ammo, gear, uniform perhaps), yes. It would certainly be constitutional for Congress to mandate purchase of say an M16 rifle, certain uniform, pack, inter alia for anyone older than 16.

[STRIKE]Your Excellency[/STRIKE] erm... I mean Kirk, so you covered Article I §8 and the Militia Act of 1792, but could you clarify that last sentence? When this was discussed before, we were given to understand that when (we) the Militia were called forth, we were expected to show up with arms and accoutrements supplied by ourselves. Such arms as are commonly in use at the [contemporary] time, i.e. the standard weapons of the infantryman. Does that last sentence mean that the type of arm and/or equipment would not be specified?

 

[VERT]

Have not had a chance to read the link yet. Have to wait till I get home. Having lived in South Dakota for several years I can tell you this legislation does not mean much. Because everyone I knew owned a gun. Not joking here. I can not think of a single person I know that does not own guns. Also the laws are very friendly to gun owners. Makes Indiana look like Illinois by comparison. And yes both the wife and I loved it out there.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I think it would be great if this somehow passed. Since public servants/LEO have NO duty or responsibility to protect people this would seem a sufficient alternative. The state, county and city budgets may begin to swell too.

 

[CarmelHP]

There's a huge distinction between this bill and Obamacare. Obamacare will likely be ruled an unconstitutional reach of the federal government's commerce clause powers. The state of South Dakota is not so restricted.

Bingo. The states have a general police power, the federal government does not. Such laws used to be common under the old militia laws. Some states required to keep arms, ammunition and military kit or pay a fine.

 

[moischmoe]

Maybe Government Motors are planing to produce firearms, this bill is just the foot in the door for "green" GM 9mm's???

They already make "green" firearms. They are battery powered and could possibly be recharged via solar cells- or a built in crank.

 

[dukeboy_318]

As much as I am for the 2nd admendment and love guns, i disagree with this bill altogether. Its unconstitutional by every means, The government cannot force an individual to buy anything, hints why the healthcare bill is up in flames right now and has been ruled unconstitutional by a florida judge. i udnerstand this is a state, but how is this any different than a state saying everyone must go out and buy a hybrid car? They should move to protect the 2nd admendment but not force it upon all citizens. Sorry, im against this one

 

[rambone]

I am against ownership bans and I am against ownership mandates. Both infringe on a person's rights. Neither are among the enumerated powers of government listed in state or federal constitution. For these reasons I feel that ownership bans & ownership mandates are unconstitutional.

Am I the only one who thinks that the government ought to point to the exact line in the constitution that gives them the legal authority to do what they do?

 

[hornadylnl]

I wonder if they've made any provision in their bill for conscientious objectors and religious exemptions? No-one should be forced to purchase anything that goes against their principles. Health insurance included. Shoot, if these politicians were interested in anything other than making some kind of point, they'd have introduced a bill to completely deregulate the industry and get government out of the business. Let folks buy across state lines, or international borders. The fact is that neither party wants to actually address the issue, they're satisfied with the status quo.

You do know that the only way to fix a bad law or regulation is to add more of them don't you?

 

[jeremy]

I am against ownership bans and I am against ownership mandates. Both infringe on a person's rights. Neither are among the enumerated powers of government listed in state or federal constitution. For these reasons I feel that ownership bans & ownership mandates are unconstitutional.

Am I the only one who thinks that the government ought to point to the exact line in the constitution that gives them the legal authority to do what they do?

Actually Kirk already place the Data supporting the Mandate part...

I have it right here for you...

Weeeelllllll, mebbe there is something . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I, §8.

Militia Act of 1792:

Of Arms and the Law: Leg history of Militia Act of 1792

Anything? No, too broad. Anything not militia related (guns, ammo, gear, uniform perhaps), yes. It wouldn't certainly be constitutional for Congress to mandate purchase of say an M16 rifle, certain uniform, pack, inter alia for anyone older than 16.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I am against ownership bans and I am against ownership mandates. Both infringe on a person's rights. Neither are among the enumerated powers of government listed in state or federal constitution. For these reasons I feel that ownership bans & ownership mandates are unconstitutional.

Am I the only one who thinks that the government ought to point to the exact line in the constitution that gives them the legal authority to do what they do?

Ummm, the 10th amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

 

[Fargo]

I am against ownership bans and I am against ownership mandates. Both infringe on a person's rights. Neither are among the enumerated powers of government listed in state or federal constitution. For these reasons I feel that ownership bans & ownership mandates are unconstitutional.

Am I the only one who thinks that the government ought to point to the exact line in the constitution that gives them the legal authority to do what they do?

As Carmel HP pointed out, the federal constitution is a document of enumerated powers. The state constitutions generally are not. State's retain the general police power as restricted by the state and federal constitutions.

Best,

Joe

 

[moischmoe]

As much as I am for the 2nd admendment and love guns, i disagree with this bill altogether. Its unconstitutional by every means, The government cannot force an individual to buy anything, hints why the healthcare bill is up in flames right now and has been ruled unconstitutional by a florida judge. i udnerstand this is a state, but how is this any different than a state saying everyone must go out and buy a hybrid car? They should move to protect the 2nd admendment but not force it upon all citizens. Sorry, im against this one

That is the exact point they are making with this legislation. What they are saying is, "If the govt can require people to buy something (health insurance), then we can also require people to buy guns." It is simply proposed legislation intended to show the unconstitutionality of Obama-care

IF this legislation were to pass, it would later get struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional, thus giving precedent for abolishing mandatory health insurance.

 

[rich8483]

i agree with the man in principle. trying to point out the fallicy of the health care bill...
however.
i think he could have written an article or done an interview where he states" what IF someone put a bill like this forward" without actually doing it. i dont think the legislation process is the place for satire or proving points.

 

[Ramen]

i agree with the man in principle. trying to point out the fallicy of the health care bill...
however.
i think he could have written an article or done an interview where he states" what IF someone put a bill like this forward" without actually doing it. i dont think the legislation process is the place for satire or proving points.

I think I would much rather see legislatures doing this then adding more and more laws that destroy liberties.

It seems that many people think that legislatures have to constantly be making law. I disagree. It would be amazing if the state legislature got together next year, repealed some laws, made a budget, and then went home.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Nothing should be forced on anyone.

 

[moischmoe]

It seems that many people think that legislatures have to constantly be making law. I disagree. It would be amazing if the state legislature got together next year, repealed some laws, made a budget, and then went home.

I have thought the exact same thing. I think they should take a break from making laws for a month or two each year, and review the laws we already have and do some spring cleaning of the codes.

 

[jeremy]

Nothing should be forced on anyone.

Yeah it is dang shame when you have to force someone to be a responsible adult...

 

[Tactical Dave]

Yeah it is dang shame when you have to force someone to be a responsible adult...

We will allways have Maurey and Springer....... and Steve Wilko or whatever......

 

[ol' trucker]

I was for the bill,before I was against it.