PDA

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


platoonDaddy
02-01-11, 15:01
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.”

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Palmguy
02-01-11, 15:31
Not a good idea, IMO.
Sry0fcr
02-01-11, 15:34
Stupid. If they were my reps I'd be pissed for wasting time and making gun owners look dumb.
Alex V
02-01-11, 15:36
If you read the comments of the guy who wrote the bill, the idea of this is not a pro-gun one, its an anti-Obamacare one.

His idea was to show that it is just as unconstitutional to force someone to buy a gun as it is to force someone to buy health insurance.
Phazuka
02-01-11, 15:36
So much for freedom of choice. Some people just shouldn't own guns. :agree:
Belmont31R
02-01-11, 15:51
If you read the comments of the guy who wrote the bill, the idea of this is not a pro-gun one, its an anti-Obamacare one.

His idea was to show that it is just as unconstitutional to force someone to buy a gun as it is to force someone to buy health insurance.




Thats what came to mind immediately, and an argument Ive made before. If the gov can show a compelling reason in court (and win) why it should be mandatory for everyone to buy insurance then the same argument can be made why everyone has to have a gun. For personal protection and national defense.



Either way I don't think the government has the authority to tell you to purchase something simply for being a US citizen or a citizen of whatever state you reside in. Just as easy as such authority can be used for insurance it can be used for many other things.


Its basically the left's next step in extending the commerce clause. Originally, and up until the 30's the commerce clause only applied to interstate commerce not intrastate commerce. Good ole FDR had his war on the court, and this was basically part of his plan to recover from the Great Depression. The case was about a farmer, and the court said the government could regulate his crops because all commerce affects interstate commerce. Now they are trying to get the gov the authority to mandate commerce.


I hope SCOTUS knocks ObamaCare down because as we see here if mandatory commerce is given to the gov it opens up a can of worms on par with extending the commerce clause to intrastate commerce.
Alric
02-01-11, 16:12
Isn't this a state bill?

Seems like it would have more impact at the Federal level. Don't the states have the power to pass something like this free and clear? I suppose it would make a ruling from the Supreme Court even more meaningful though.
Belmont31R
02-01-11, 16:20
Isn't this a state bill?

Seems like it would have more impact at the Federal level. Don't the states have the power to pass something like this free and clear? I suppose it would make a ruling from the Supreme Court even more meaningful though.


Not necessarily. Their powers/rights are not open ended...
one
02-01-11, 17:12
I would not agree with this. We have too many willing gun owners out there that won't take safety and responsibility seriously enough. I can't see any benefit to force feeding firearms down the throats of people that don't want them in their lives and, frankly, have every right not to if that's how they so choose.

I don't think you should force a right on someone anymore than you should take it away from them.
Alex V
02-01-11, 18:38
Thats what came to mind immediately, and an argument Ive made before. If the gov can show a compelling reason in court (and win) why it should be mandatory for everyone to buy insurance then the same argument can be made why everyone has to have a gun. For personal protection and national defense.



Either way I don't think the government has the authority to tell you to purchase something simply for being a US citizen or a citizen of whatever state you reside in. Just as easy as such authority can be used for insurance it can be used for many other things.


Its basically the left's next step in extending the commerce clause. Originally, and up until the 30's the commerce clause only applied to interstate commerce not intrastate commerce. Good ole FDR had his war on the court, and this was basically part of his plan to recover from the Great Depression. The case was about a farmer, and the court said the government could regulate his crops because all commerce affects interstate commerce. Now they are trying to get the gov the authority to mandate commerce.


I hope SCOTUS knocks ObamaCare down because as we see here if mandatory commerce is given to the gov it opens up a can of worms on par with extending the commerce clause to intrastate commerce.


Not sure how accurate the source is, but this is where I read that. Was not an original through I can credit myself with.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

The quote is "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 [Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls] said