Quantcast
  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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Louisville Kentucky
    Sent to me by a friend.
    http://www.argusleader.com/article/...1/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.
     
  2. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,434
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    I hate NY... so I moved to Texas!
    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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,435
    Location:
    Howard County, Merry Land
    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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,717
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    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

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    463
    Why not? States require you to insure youre vehicle. The goevernment looked at doing that, but it was deemed unconstitutional.
     
  8. kingpin008

    kingpin008 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,435
    Location:
    Howard County, Merry Land
    Since no state in the nation REQUIRES residents to own cars, your comment isn't really germane to the conversation.
     
  9. rajb123

    rajb123 member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    892
    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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Lincoln Park, Mi.
    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

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    That's sort of the point.
     
  12. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Michigan
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    N. Central FL
    As a matter of principle, I'm not in favor of our government forcing people to buy things.
     
  15. rm23

    rm23 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    I hate NY... so I moved to Texas!
    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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,194
    Location:
    Stalingrad, USA
    ...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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    This is NOT a very good way of proving their point.
     
  18. RS14

    RS14 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    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 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,435
    Location:
    Howard County, Merry Land
    Um, no. :scrutiny:
     
  20. Zoogster

    Zoogster Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,015
    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
  21. mes227

    mes227 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    Incline Village, NV
    )

    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.
     
  22. Colonel

    Colonel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011
  23. Colonel

    Colonel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    The same basic idea is still there in current federal law:

    -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.
     
  24. FNX-9

    FNX-9 New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Atlanta
    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.
     
  25. PR-NJ

    PR-NJ Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of New Jersey...no more
    I think the bill is at the other end of stupid --that is, stupid at the other extreme.
     

Share This Page