TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting.

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-defense.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote:Interesting.

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-defense.

He admits that it won't pass, but is filing just to make a point. Maybe he should try a bill that the Federal Government has to supply all adults with a firearm.

Right2Carry wrote:Interesting.

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-defense.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is just super; however, it is about as unconstitutional as Obama's mandatory health insurance bill. Does the bill indicate what type and caliber/gauge firearm is to be purchased?

ELB wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: ... Does the bill indicate what type and caliber/gauge firearm is to be purchased?

“sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense."

The Supreme Court would say it's unconstitutional for being too vague.

I heard a perfect quote in relation to this.

Just because tyranny comes in a flavor you like, doesnt mean its not tyranny

BTW- I did read the article and understand the point of it.

Oldgringo wrote: ... it is about as unconstitutional as Obama's mandatory health insurance bill. ...

Not so fast, maybe...

Instapundit (Prof Reynolds) points out that a) this is

a) a (proposed) state law, not a federal law, and the same Federal constitutional restrictions do not apply, and
b) the federal Militia Act of 1792 did in fact require each US citizen to own a rifle or musket and ammunition -- but under the authority of its militia powers, not its commerce powers.

See his post here: 21ST CENTURY GUN CONTROL


For refernce: The federal milita powers (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress)

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;

Now whether SD's constitution provides for organizing and arming a militia, I dunno, but it probably does.

Oldgringo wrote: ... Does the bill indicate what type and caliber/gauge firearm is to be purchased?

“sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense."

So, no. Keltec P32, Barrett .50 cal, whatever...

This is not the first time in recent history. Do not forget Kennesaw, GA.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey guys,

Put down the sticks and stones. I think it's a great bill and should be expanded to mandate OC by every qualified to purchase a handgun adult over the legal voting age. The bill's passage and ultimate survival; however, gives pause.

That better?

AndyC wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:That is just super; however, it is about as unconstitutional as Obama's mandatory health insurance bill.

That's his point - this bill actually has nothing to do with firearms.

He's saying "Well, if people can be forced to get health care then logically they can also be forced to have guns" - and since Congress will NEVER vote to force people to own guns (as it's unconstitutional), then health care can't be forced upon us either - QED.

Does that mean it would be constitutional to use a portion of state taxes to provide free ammo to SD residents, in the model of public health care or public education?

AndyC wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: ...He's saying "Well, if people can be forced to get health care then logically they can also be forced to have guns" - and since Congress will NEVER vote to force people to own guns (as it's unconstitutional), then health care can't be forced upon us either - QED.

But, as Prof Reynolds pointed out, this isn't really the case (altho the sponsor apparently doesn't realize this). The Congress CAN (and HAS) constitutionally require people to have guns. (And note that the Militia Act of 1792 was passed by a Congress that whose members were present at the founding of the Constitution. IIRC, the President who would have signed it into law would be one G. Washington.

But not healthcare. Militia clause, commerce clause. different powers.

I too really like the SD bill, but as far as illustrating the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, it seems to be a booboo. I doubt that most of the Democratic legislators know or care, but for those who believe the Constitution should be taken seriously, this is a serious point.

ELB wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: ...He's saying "Well, if people can be forced to get health care then logically they can also be forced to have guns" - and since Congress will NEVER vote to force people to own guns (as it's unconstitutional), then health care can't be forced upon us either - QED.

I never said that. I never said that at all! You've mixed quotes. If you're going to "quote" people, please pay attention and learn how to do it correctly.

What if it somehow passes?