Bill in SD to mandate weapon purchase


PDA






raddiver
February 2, 2011, 04:52 PM
Sent to me by a friend.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

So its obvious the point that is trying to be made here. but it makes for some interesting discussion material.

I see the potential for for good and bad here. At least in the early stages should it get passed. (which it wont as we know) But if we could get past the, what i would call "the stupid stage" the implications for criminal activity decline are huge.

anyway thought i would share.
This is obviously tongue in cheek so take it for what it is.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill in SD to mandate weapon purchase" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Friendly, Don't Fire!
February 2, 2011, 05:07 PM
I read that news and thought that it was a pretty good way to prove a point.

Like you say, it could make for a lot less crime, wouldn't that be a nice benefit from it? :)

rm23
February 2, 2011, 05:38 PM
This could help with the deficit, because fewer law enforcement personnel would be needed, as people would defend themselves. I would hope that employers (including church organizations, non-profits, and community organizing groups) would be forced to purchase guns for all employees, or pay a substantial fine. I was disappointed to see that no serious criteria was specified for the type of weapon mandated... I mean, allowing people to get by with just purchasing some little pea-shooter, why that would be like letting people just purchase major medical insurance, they should be forced to purchase weapons with high calibers; in fact, it would probably be better if we put all the gun dealers out of business, and had people acquire their guns directly from the government (of course a special gun tax would need to be imposed on highest wage earners to pay for the guns for the needy... poor people need guns too!).
There would of course need to be an entire bureaucracy set up including several agencies and thousands of IRS agents to insure compliance, a two thousand page bill to insure confusion, and a deliberate ignoring of the will of the voters to insure passage. Unconstitutional?

kingpin008
February 2, 2011, 08:07 PM
Honestly, these sorts of bills are always cute, but I'm glad (and not suprised) when they don't go anywhere.

I get the point behind them, but IMHO the premise is all wrong. In America, you don't have the right to legislate freedom. As an American, I have the right to own a gun, just as much as I have the right to never ever touch one. The fact that another individual (be they regular joe or politician) doesn't like that is, to be blunt, tough.

The Lone Haranguer
February 2, 2011, 08:20 PM
I can't agree with this. People who dislike or are afraid of guns (and both attitudes are closely related) should not be forced to buy them. Such a move would only harden their resolve. Make it a non-binding resolution that encourages it, and I would be on board.

TexasRifleman
February 2, 2011, 08:22 PM
I can't agree with this.

I don't think anyone can. Seems a bad idea to me too. It appears to be only symbolic as a protest against the mandatory requirement to buy healthcare, I don't think they will push to actually make this into law.

Strangely though there does seem to be some weight behind the argument a government can require arms. The "regulating a militia" part of 2A might give some coverage I suppose.

Certainly seems more Constitutional that a government would ARM it's citizens rather than pass laws to DISARM them.

jonmerritt
February 2, 2011, 09:50 PM
Why not? States require you to insure youre vehicle. The goevernment looked at doing that, but it was deemed unconstitutional.

kingpin008
February 2, 2011, 09:59 PM
Why not? States require you to insure youre vehicle. The goevernment looked at doing that, but it was deemed unconstitutional.

Since no state in the nation REQUIRES residents to own cars, your comment isn't really germane to the conversation.

rajb123
February 3, 2011, 06:43 AM
CNN or one of the other liberal media broadcasters ran a "horror" story Wednesday that this bill had become law.

Anyway, I have advocated this for years but, like the Obamacare provision requiring people to buy healthcare insurance, it is not Constitional ....apparently a commerce clause issue...

Kaeto
February 3, 2011, 08:52 AM
This proposed law is a bad idea. It is just as bad s the provision in the healthcare law that requires you to buy insurance as it requires a private citizen to purchase a product from a private company.

TexasRifleman
February 3, 2011, 09:24 AM
This proposed law is a bad idea. It is just as bad s the provision in the healthcare law that requires you to buy insurance as it requires a private citizen to purchase a product from a private company.

That's sort of the point.

tyeo098
February 3, 2011, 09:28 AM
In sweden, they give you a rifle. No need to purchase one.

But youre also enlisted in the Military.

But who fights with Sweden? :D

bobbarker
February 3, 2011, 09:41 AM
I like this. Not as an actual, "Man, I hope it gets passed into law." But I think it does make one heck of a point. First thing I thought when I was reading the synopsis from the OP was, "This is exactly like forcing people to buy healthcare." And, Lo and behold, that's the point they were trying to make. Planning on bringing this up in discussion at school today.

gatorjames85
February 3, 2011, 12:07 PM
As a matter of principle, I'm not in favor of our government forcing people to buy things.

rm23
February 3, 2011, 12:32 PM
Guys, I don't know how you all don't see it, but this bill is a joke. Some legislator proposed this only to show what an infringement on our freedom ObamaCare is. SD is not going to pass this, or even vote on it.

KBintheSLC
February 3, 2011, 01:40 PM
Why not? States require you to insure youre vehicle.

...but they don't force you to buy a car. I will join the crowd and agree that this is a bad idea. Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. If someone does not want one, that is their choice.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 3, 2011, 01:47 PM
This is NOT a very good way of proving their point.

RS14
February 3, 2011, 01:54 PM
...but they don't force you to buy a car. I will join the crowd and agree that this is a bad idea. Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. If someone does not want one, that is their choice.

I'm curious, then: can they compel you to buy a gun (or health insurance, for that matter) if you own and drive a car?

kingpin008
February 3, 2011, 03:29 PM
I'm curious, then: can they compel you to buy a gun (or health insurance, for that matter) if you own and drive a car?

Um, no. :scrutiny:

Zoogster
February 3, 2011, 05:35 PM
I am against this.

But it should be noted this is actually not quite the violation of the Constitution that many people think it is.
I recall members of the militia, being all able bodied men between a certain age (and now we are a society of equality so that presumably would include women too) having to report with arms.
The Uniform Militia Act in place for a long time in the United States actually required it by federal law.
There was just no punishment for non-compliance at the federal level, but it was the law.


Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

This was when such arms were the standard arms of professional infantry.
The modern equivalent would be every citizen having to at least have an M16, with so many loaded magazines, and minor cleaning supplies.





The roots of this system (separate from the roots of the right to keep and bear arms) are stated in this portion of an article:

The American militia system has its roots in ancient English tradition, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon militia that existed centuries before the Norman Conquest in 1066. This militia, known as the fyrd, consisted of every able-bodied male of military age. It was traditionally used for defense only, and the sovereign could call upon the fyrd to fight if the men would be able to return to their homes by nightfall. Fyrd members were required to supply their own weapons, which they could use only in the service of the king.

It was essentially a short term defensive force that could not be deployed anywhere, but could be required to assemble for defense.
Sending such men on offensive tasks or abroad though would have been unheard of.


The individual RKBA stems from later things such as the Magna Carta. Where rebellious barons made sure they retained the RKBA so they could battle the king's forces again in the future if needed. Essentially a check on tyranny by protecting the right of free men (which were a minority in the feudal system) to weapons that would allow them to effectively fight their own government if necessary.
Later being partially extended and influencing the right to arms of many more people in the English Bill of Rights.
The Magna Carta principles were combined with highly respected thought from individuals like John Locke and "natural rights" to insure the right of individuals to arms.





So a requirement to own arms was in fact considered Constitutional by the very men that wrote the Constitution.
The US Bill of Rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791, the Uniform Militia Act was passed by many of the same people in 1792.
They clearly felt it was Constitutional to require individuals to own arms of the type necessary for modern combat of the day. (Is that a "sporting purpose" :rolleyes: ? )


So summed up:
The Requirement to keep combat arms historically stems from a requirement to have the capability to fight for the government in a localized defensive manner.
The Right to keep and bear arms historically stems from the right to retain the capability to fight against the government, and later applied to other self defense and self preservation applications.

Combining the two would leave one with a requirement and a right to keep arms capable of being effective against typical forces, including those of foreign and domestic governments, and a right to bear them.

mes227
February 3, 2011, 05:47 PM
So a requirement to own arms was in fact considered Constitutional by the very men that wrote the Constitution.
The US Bill of Rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791, the Uniform Militia Act was passed by many of the same people in 1792.
They clearly felt it was Constitutional to require individuals to own arms of the type necessary for modern combat of the day. )

Constitutional law consists of The Constitution, it's Amendments, and the subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, written by the very people who wrote "all men are created equal", specified that a black man was worth 5/8ths of a white man. And the Framers owned - and at least occasionally - mistreated slaves, prohibited their wives from having any say in the emerging democracy, and on and on. "Because the Framers did it" is not a valid legal argument.

Colonel
February 3, 2011, 06:30 PM
In sweden Switzerland, they give you a rifle machine gun. No need to purchase one.

But youre also enlisted in the Military.

Hey, somebody's gotta guard all those Swiss bank accounts!

In colonial Virginia, you were required to bring your gun to church.

In colonial Massachusetts :eek: you were required to own a gun and powder and balls. If you couldn't afford one, you would be given one provided at community expense.

Colonel
February 3, 2011, 06:37 PM
The American militia system has its roots in ancient English tradition, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon militia that existed centuries before the Norman Conquest in 1066. This militia, known as the fyrd, consisted of every able-bodied male of military age.

The same basic idea is still there in current federal law (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt):

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

FNX-9
February 3, 2011, 08:57 PM
A friend of mine lives in Kennesaw, GA and he told me that it is a law that every household has a gun in it. I am new to GA and do not live in that town (20 mins, north of Atlanta) so i can not verify. I do know that Kennesaw is a vice town with a low crime rate.

Once again i do not live there and i am only relaying what someone else told me.

PR-NJ
February 3, 2011, 09:07 PM
I think the bill is at the other end of stupid --that is, stupid at the other extreme.

RS14
February 3, 2011, 10:14 PM
kingpin008, the reason I ask about cars is the apparent general feeling that the government can compel auto insurance, but only if you choose to own a car. But if we decide such legislation doesn't matter because you always have the choice to not buy a car, then would we not by the same logic permit any other requirements, be they guns or health insurance?

How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?

A friend of mine lives in Kennesaw, GA and he told me that it is a law that every household has a gun in it. I am new to GA and do not live in that town (20 mins, north of Atlanta) so i can not verify. I do know that Kennesaw is a vice town with a low crime rate.

Once again i do not live there and i am only relaying what someone else told me.

In Kennesaw, GA, every head of household is required to keep and maintain a gun, but there is a long list of exemptions for people prohibited from possessing firearms, unable to afford them, morally opposed, disabled, etc. In any case, nobody has ever been charged with violating it. As a practical matter, it is not really required.

nwilliams
February 3, 2011, 11:31 PM
People should have the right to own guns if they choose. Period.

I don't believe that the government should force anyone in this country to do anything against their will and that includes owning a firearm.

On top of that there are plenty of people out there, besides criminals and the mentally unstable, that probably shouldn't own a gun for their own sake and for everyone else around them. Besides I have a lot of family and friends that are anti-gun and I respect the fact that they choose not to own firearms.

kingpin008
February 3, 2011, 11:56 PM
How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?

Ok, I already covered this in an earlier comment, but I'll try again:

The difference is that the requirement to purchase auto insurance is wholly dependent on owning a car in the first place. They can't compel you to purchase insurance for something that you don't own.

What this bill is talking about is compelling Americans to own guns, not gun insurance. To go back to the cars thing, that's akin to the government passing a law that says "YOU MUST BUY A CAR!" Which, obviously, they can't do. Therefore, there is a world of difference.

52grain
February 4, 2011, 11:19 PM
Quote:
How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?
Ok, I already covered this in an earlier comment, but I'll try again:

The difference is that the requirement to purchase auto insurance is wholly dependent on owning a car in the first place. They can't compel you to purchase insurance for something that you don't own.

What this bill is talking about is compelling Americans to own guns, not gun insurance. To go back to the cars thing, that's akin to the government passing a law that says "YOU MUST BUY A CAR!" Which, obviously, they can't do. Therefore, there is a world of difference.

Not completely true. The government only requires that you purchase insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads. As far as I know you drive around a cow pasture all you want without insurance. Even then you don't always have to purchase insurance to drive on public roads. Here you can post a bond or deposit securities in the amount of (I believe) $50,000 with the state and then skip the insurance.

Double Naught Spy
February 5, 2011, 02:32 AM
But if we could get past the, what i would call "the stupid stage" the implications for criminal activity decline are huge.

Yes, there is potential. Even so like the Giffords' shooting in AZ, really bad things can and will happen. Just last year, Jesse James Warren walked into his former job and opened fire, killing 3 and wounding 2 more. This was in Kennesaw, GA where households are all supposed to have guns, though this shooting did not happen at anyone's home, but a business. Georgia also has concealed carry and open carry by permit, of course.

This double murder was in a home in Kennesaw...
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-atlanta/kennesaw-man-charged-with-double-murder

Murder-suicide in the home in 2007...
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=107022
Kennesaw, GA does have a low crime rate pretty much across the board, even for crimes that would not be affected by people having guns in their homes.

If you Google the city, you may come across this artilce from WND, orignally done in 2007 right after the VT shootings. The article states that Kennesaw has been murder-free for 25 years, since mandatory home gun ownership was put into place. You will find this article mentioned all over the 'net and on this board was well....http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=271150&highlight=murder+free+kennesaw
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Don't be fooled. The article is a big fat lie. In just the years between 1999 and 2005, Kennesaw had 4 murders.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html

In 2006, the year before the WND article, this murder suicide occurred at a student's home...
http://onlineathens.com/stories/082306/news_20060823064.shtml

Don't get me wrong. Kennesaw seems to be a great place to live and has low crime rates. Just know that some of the over-hyped claims about aspects such as being murder-free are not correct.

Wes B
February 5, 2011, 03:49 AM
I thought this was the funniest thing I had read in a long while. If I was sure I wouldn't have sprained or strained something I would have been rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

When it came out I heard from a few people about how this was going to give a rise to accidents everywhere.
Being a smart aleck I mentioned that nowhere in the bill did it require anyone to buy bullets.

My second thought was:
In sweden, they give you a rifle. No need to purchase one.

But youre also enlisted in the Military.

But who fights with Sweden?

For the belligerent people I told them this was an end-run on to enact complusory enrollment in the armed forces. Again, I can be a smart aleck.


To make the bill better, they should have included the provision that the purschase would be entirely tax deductible. Not that SD has a state income tax. But I am still dreaming about a Monson MA Dan Wesson .44 with interchangeable barrels. I think it would suit my demeanor just fine.

kingpin008
February 5, 2011, 10:58 AM
Not completely true. The government only requires that you purchase insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads. As far as I know you drive around a cow pasture all you want without insurance. Even then you don't always have to purchase insurance to drive on public roads. Here you can post a bond or deposit securities in the amount of (I believe) $50,000 with the state and then skip the insurance.

All correct, but once again it's got nothing at all to do with the present conversation. So can we stop talking about insurance?

jon_in_wv
February 5, 2011, 11:13 AM
I don't support the government forcing people to buy guns any more that I support the government forcing people to buy health insurance.

General Geoff
February 5, 2011, 07:49 PM
Mandatory weapon ownership is just as tyrannical as banned weapon ownership; historically, even with the militia requirements, laws mandating ownership of a firearm were not strictly enforced for various reasons, including economic (some cannot afford a firearm), religious, or philosophical.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill in SD to mandate weapon purchase" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!