South Dakota "must buy gun" Bill

[rambone]

That was kind of the point of the article and the reason the bill was proposed.

Is this an acceptable way to make a point? Drafting a prank bill?

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.

Having said that, I'm not so sure this is a good idea for many reasons. What happens when they get a loopy legislature that wants to mandate 3 servings of vegetables a day?

You sound like you are of the opinion that this bill is constitutional, but a bad idea. Am I wrong?

 

[Fargo]

You sound like you are of the opinion that this bill is constitutional, but a bad idea. Am I wrong?

IMO it is certainly constitutional as far as the federal constitution goes. As far as the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, I have no idea as I have never read it.

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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

 

[E5RANGER375]

LOL

I personally think that Service Members that have an Honorable Discharge should be allowed to leave the Service with their duty weapons...

I also think it is a crime that Service Members are NOT required to be armed at all times also...

 

[combat45acp]

As Long as Mine has a gold Bowtie Emblem on it it, I'm Game.

Bling Bling, need two and a nice double shoulder rig!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You sound like you are of the opinion that this bill is constitutional, but a bad idea. Am I wrong?

There is no provision in the US Constitution making the mandate of ownership of anything a Federal matter.

Nothing in the US Constitution bars a state from mandating ownership of anything.

Therefore a state may mandate you buy anything, unless the state's Constitution bars the state from issuing such a mandate.

Whether that would be the smart thing to do or not is an entirely different question. I don't think anyone should be required to purchase anything they don't like.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is no provision in the US Constitution making the mandate of ownership of anything a Federal matter.

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 would certainly be constitutional for Congress to mandate purchase of say an M16 rifle, certain uniform, pack, inter alia for anyone older than 16.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

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.

Fair enough. I was thinking of it in more generic terms. But in the specific case of guns you're right.

 

[singlesix]

LOL

I personally think that Service Members that have an Honorable Discharge should be allowed to leave the Service with their duty weapons...

I also think it is a crime that Service Members are NOT required to be armed at all times also...

HECK NO! I want the good stuff and not some piece of crap produced by the lowest bidder. My service 45 had so much play in the slide you could hear even when holstered as I walked.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nothing in the US Constitution bars a state from mandating ownership of anything.

Weeeeellllll, mebbe the Fourteenth Amendment.

E.g. a state mandates the ownership of certain state mandated religious material.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Fair enough. I was thinking of it in more generic terms. But in the specific case of guns you're right.

Darn lawyers, always finding loopholes!

 

[Bendrx]

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.

That means they must buy guns without any "sporting" purposes! Yay EBRs for everyone!!!

 

[jeremy]

Kirk, how dare you try to bring facts into this thread?!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just raising issues, not being an intentional jerk.

 

[jeremy]

BS...

LOL!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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

 

[singlesix]

So a stunt by a few State Reps to get their name in the paper ....

 

[indyjoe]

LOL

I personally think that Service Members that have an Honorable Discharge should be allowed to leave the Service with their duty weapons...

That would be cool if you were a gunner on an M1.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would love to see this bill pass and become law. Before anyone jumps on that, consider Kennesaw, GA, 1982, wherein the city council passed an ordinance requiring the same (in response to Morton Grove, IL passing an ordinance forbidding the ownership of a firearm within the town's borders.) The Kennesaw ordinance has many loopholes in it and even if it had none, it has no "teeth"... there is no penalty for non-compliance.

As a result of its passage, however, the violent crime rate plummeted faster than Congress' approval ratings and last I checked, even as late as 2008, the rate of those crimes still had not come close to those preceding the passage (and those were higher than the national average) despite Kennesaw's population quadrupling.

In contrast, Morton Grove's population shrunk and their violent crime rate skyrocketed. When Heller was decided, they repealed their ordinance; I've not checked since then to see what the numbers did in the wake of the repeal.

It seems the mere concept that people may be armed is enough to deter the criminal element. Whodathunkit?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Mosineer]

Well, I honestly can not see the harm by making the comparison of health care insurance and firearms. The sponsers of the buy a firearm mandate admittingly say the bill has no chance of passing. But since they feel the Government, both federal and state, have no right to individual madate anything, they are saying, that if you set a precedence in allowing the Government to mandate health care insurance, they can concievably madate what ever they please, including firearms, vegetables, toilet paper and which green machines you have to buy from Al Gore's Green INC. MOOC....I think it is a great poke at the usually liberal for health care mandate(not always the case) anti firearm ownership crowd. Again MOOC