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-defence.”

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.”

This is an interesting premise but if you follow the link to the article you will see that the people behind this bill know it will be killed. The sole purpose of this bill is to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

This is what rep Hal Wick had to say.

“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,”

It seems that more and more people are agreeing that the federal health care reform mandate is unconstitutional. This does not bode well for Obama considering this mandate was considered his biggest achievement since being in office...
www.argusleader.com...

This is wrong, how about all the people that can't afford to go out and purchase a $1200 gun? Do they expect granny to cut down on her funds and go out and buy a hungarian Ak47?

It is the Badlands of the United States, a lot of Native American spiritual ties around that area. Maybe they know something we don't.

reply to post by DevilDog0311


Since when do all guns cost 1200 bucks? My pistols I got brand new for 500 and less? Or is your comment one of those anti- 2nd Amendment nay sayers? I'm betting on the latter~

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Im not anti 2nd amendment, I own guns. 500 is cheap for a gun, but its still a # load of money. You cant expect everyone to go out and drop 5 bills because the law says they have to.

reply to post by DevilDog0311


Did you guys not read the OP? They said they know the bill will be killed, but it will prove it's point that it is unconstitutional to require people to buy something.

reply to post by warbird03


Honostly didnt read what you had to say, only read the quote. My bad.

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Im not anti 2nd amendment, I own guns. 500 is cheap for a gun, but its still a # load of money. You cant expect everyone to go out and drop 5 bills because the law says they have to.

edit on 3-2-2011 by DevilDog0311 because: (no reason given)

No people shouldn't have to do that....BUT.....they will have to spend 200?, 300?, 400? a month FOREVER on health care depending on how many family members. No choice in the matter.

Sounds pretty unconstitutional. No?

can i get an m4 with a elephant gun attachment or would that not be allowed

reply to post by TV_Nation


I fully believe it is a great idea..

It would allow the state to cut funds to police in cities like they are trying....

It would also allow a small fire arms tax... say about ten dollars on a gun, with a five dollar liscense fee to add to your drivers liscenes...... Revenues and increased savings.. SD wins all the way around...

Also sell a permit to not carry a gun, say about 150.00 a year.. (all legal states can do it the feds cant)

Crime has been proven to go down with mandatory gun carrying laws.. This would start a good trend....

go SD....

A safer nation is armed and by the same virtue VERY polite....

They should have said that if you can't afford a gun, then they will make people who are richer than you, BUY one for you.

S+F

reply to post by DevilDog0311


I just so happened to have walked out of a gun store 1.5 hours ago with a brand new pistol that only set me back 289.00.

No need to spend 1200.

there is no way this bill will pass, like the OP said it is simply a power play to show that the gov. doesnt have the right to force individuals to purchase a product. however, I think everyone SHOULD own a gun... really, a $100-$300 investment can bring you hours of enjoyment, a fun hobby, and legitimate self-defense when YOU need it. I will use my common defense in saying, "a gun is the only weapon that can keep a 110lb woman protected from (4) 200lb assailants". FACT.

reply to post by badgerprints


Oh I don't disagree with you there! I believe that all social programs that are Unconstitutional, ( which would suggest all of them ) should be eradicated. Thus ending a burden on the tax payer.

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
This is wrong, how about all the people that can't afford to go out and purchase a $1200 gun? Do they expect granny to cut down on her funds and go out and buy a hungarian Ak47?

Youi can buy a brand new 45 here for about 250$ and smaller guns for less. You can get a good used one for about 100$ or even less for the crap guns.....22, 25, 380, etc

also why it is legal...

SD itself has mandatory coverage laws already in place...

SD car insurance- ehow

Getting into a car accident can prove costly in terms of injury and property damage. Having an insurance policy in place protects the policy holder from financial ruin that could result from an accident and also protects the victims. In South Dakota, drivers must have an insurance policy that covers liability and underinsured/uninsured motorists. The state permits drivers to establish financial responsibility in alternate ways such as a cash deposit or bond.

Read more: South Dakota Car Insurance Laws | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

then you get towed for not having it... they sieze your property if you do not pay for their services...


How is this any better then pelosi's health nazi laws....

The answer is it is not... The states are mad because they do not get a cut of the cash... I do not see the states having grounds on the healthcare bill unless they give up car insurance... otherwise they can be sued for taking peoples cars unconstitutionally... you do not get it both ways...

The money from car insurance or no health insurance... which is it....

It translates that the states can force the purchase of guns by its citizens..... the can do it on car insurance...

I know I ramble a wee bit, but I hope I clarified my point...

Forced purchase is already legal in most states...

I see the only issue as to if the federal government can do what the states do?

reply to post by TV_Nation


Eh. I normally don't call out my own threads but I created this very topic several days ago with the same exact title....the search function here really does work.....
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

So I'm paying elected officials to make mock bills in order to prove a point that is being debated anyway? Great job, guys.

A more appropriate (fair) comparison would have been a bill that required people to purchase vitamin supplements to cut down on healthcare costs. Again, against the constitution. Again, supporter wouldn't care. I don't care. The constitution means nothing in a dynamic democracy. You make laws, change laws, remove laws, etc. It's not a religion, it's legislation. Quit wasting my money.

reply to post by TV_Nation


Not sure about this.

I am an unapologetic supporter of unrestricted gun rights. But, like the individual mandate in thr HC Law, government should not be telling people what to buy. Especially things like this. I support the right of Americans who don't want to be armed to NOT be armed if they so choose.

Consistency is key folks... But I also realize that this has little chance of passing and states CAN mandate he purchae of certain products. Insurance comes to mind...