1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bill in SD to mandate weapon purchase

Discussion in 'Legal' started by raddiver, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. raddiver

    raddiver New Member

    Sent to me by a friend.

    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.

    BADUNAME37 New Member

    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? :)
  3. rm23

    rm23 New Member

    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?
  4. kingpin008

    kingpin008 New Member

    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.
  5. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer New Member

    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.
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  7. jonmerritt

    jonmerritt Member.

    Why not? States require you to insure youre vehicle. The goevernment looked at doing that, but it was deemed unconstitutional.
  8. kingpin008

    kingpin008 New Member

    Since no state in the nation REQUIRES residents to own cars, your comment isn't really germane to the conversation.
  9. rajb123

    rajb123 member

    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...
  10. Kaeto

    Kaeto New Member

    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.
  11. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    That's sort of the point.
  12. tyeo098

    tyeo098 New Member

    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
  13. bobbarker

    bobbarker New Member

    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.
  14. gatorjames85

    gatorjames85 New Member

    As a matter of principle, I'm not in favor of our government forcing people to buy things.
  15. rm23

    rm23 New Member

    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.
  16. KBintheSLC

    KBintheSLC New Member

    ...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.
  17. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz New Member

    This is NOT a very good way of proving their point.
  18. RS14

    RS14 New Member

    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?
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011
  19. kingpin008

    kingpin008 New Member

    Um, no. :scrutiny:
  20. Zoogster

    Zoogster Active Member

    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.

    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:

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011

Share This Page