Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: South Dakota Bill to require anyone 21 and older to own a gun. Smack Smack ObamaCare.

  1. #1
    Regular Member billv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Houston now, Asheville soon
    Posts
    84

    South Dakota Bill to require anyone 21 and older to own a gun. Smack Smack ObamaCare.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nt-health-law/

    It won't pass. It's likely unconstitutional.

    And it's not really about owning a gun but to make a point that the mandatory requirement for having health insurance in ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

    It's a good point they make. But I wish it would pass anyway.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do *they* not understand?

  2. #2
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    How nice would it be to have a law like that on a national level though. Finally legislation that is truely for the bennefit of the people.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Sigh.................what a wonderful dream.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 View Post
    How nice would it be to have a law like that on a national level though. Finally legislation that is truely for the bennefit of the people.
    There used to be. The Militia Acts of 1792.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by billv View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nt-health-law/

    It won't pass. It's likely unconstitutional.
    With sufficient opt-out privileges would probably pass constitutional muster.

    Kennesaw, Georgia has had such a law since the 1980's.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...19257620070418
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241
    Everyone needs to understand the limitations of FEDERAL vs STATE.

    SD passing a bill /would/ pass constitutional muster, they are not the federal government. While certain amendments also apply to the states, people lack the knowledge of how the government works. Perplexes me this bill is coming from a SD state legislator.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by NRAMARINE View Post
    Sigh.................what a wonderful dream.
    It sounds great, but as we know individual mandates are unconstitutional.
    Also wanted to give a hearty thank you to NRAMarine for his tag as it were. Truer words were never typed. May God Bless you.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Don't forget that Kennesaw, GA did something vaguely similar to this in 1982 to combat rising and spread crime and as a way to give the finger to Morton Grove, IL.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Don't forget that Kennesaw, GA did something vaguely similar to this in 1982 to combat rising and spread crime and as a way to give the finger to Morton Grove, IL.

    Haven't had your coffee yet, I see. Dig your way back to post #5
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Haven't had your coffee yet, I see. Dig your way back to post #5
    Ooops. Now where did I put that washcloth I use to wipe the egg off of my face?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Ooops. Now where did I put that washcloth I use to wipe the egg off of my face?
    Not to worry, it's worth referencing over and over.

    How about we go for such for the entire state of Virginia AND Constitutional Carry? Lori and Colin would be gasping for breath and sputtering about the wild west.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not to worry, it's worth referencing over and over.

    How about we go for such for the entire state of Virginia AND Constitutional Carry?
    You had it, back in 1658, well before our U.S. Constitution:

    "In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so."
    - Source: Congress' 1982 Right to Keep and Bear Arms report (88-618 0)

    It's 1673 modification, with slight modification, if adopted by a state today, would negate any claims that it was unconstitutionl. The modification would be along the lines of Mirand's "if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you."
    Last edited by since9; 02-10-2011 at 02:42 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    44
    While I see everyone here saying that it'd be great and all, I sure hope you don't mean it.

    I would love to see a gun in every single house and on every hip in the US, what a wonderful world that would be... but what I want even more so is the right to choose to do it or not. That's liberty! The freedom to choose. Requiring everyone with a pulse to own a gun is no more constitutional or acceptable than requiring health insurance. I applaud the lawmakers in SD for doing this but I hope (and expect) it to not pass. I just hope that the libs see the double standard that they are making and the precedent that is being set.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Actually, as the Framers envisioned the militia, there was a requirement for every able-bodied adult male, 18-45, to have a firearm. They saw such a requirement as necessary to the security of a free State. Of course, such laws need exception for conscience and incapacity.

    I don't have a problem with firearm ownership being mandated.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    44
    I understand where you are coming from and it does sound fairly reasonable, especialy looking at switzerland's success.

    But I think that's why we are different - and better! Our military is largely volunteer (with the exception of the draft being used here and there) and we have one of the most powerful militaries in the world. The freedom to choose whether we want to defend ourselves or scream like a little girl and say "please don't hurt me, take whatever you want just don't hurt me!" is a right. To force someone to buy a product (health insurance, gun, or otherwise) from a private party, regardless of the justification is unconstitutional.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by emtechnik View Post
    I understand where you are coming from and it does sound fairly reasonable, especialy looking at switzerland's success.

    But I think that's why we are different - and better! Our military is largely volunteer (with the exception of the draft being used here and there) and we have one of the most powerful militaries in the world. The freedom to choose whether we want to defend ourselves or scream like a little girl and say "please don't hurt me, take whatever you want just don't hurt me!" is a right. To force someone to buy a product (health insurance, gun, or otherwise) from a private party, regardless of the justification is unconstitutional.
    Is it unconstitutional that the government requires you to wear pants? They are not telling you which pants to buy, but you are not allowed to go about without them.

    I see the thought as being very consistent with the thinking and recorded documents left behind by the founding fathers. You're not being told that you must purchase the government brand, only that you will have one for personal defense and for the common good.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Is it unconstitutional that the government requires you to wear pants? They are not telling you which pants to buy, but you are not allowed to go about without them. ...snip
    Actually, you can go without pants, as long as the privates are covered, and even that is not necessary in some areas. Until 2007 Brattlboro, VT was one such place. Just get a Utilikilt and have at it.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot
    Is it unconstitutional that the government requires you to wear pants? They are not telling you which pants to buy, but you are not allowed to go about without them. ...snip
    Quote Originally Posted by ldsgeek View Post
    Actually, you can go without pants, as long as the privates are covered, and even that is not necessary in some areas. Until 2007 Brattlboro, VT was one such place. Just get a Utilikilt and have at it.
    As I would propose there should be opt out priviledges such as in Kennesaw, Georgia.
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...-2/blog-29299/
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    How about instead of mandatory to own, you can't call 911 for LEO help if you don't own?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How about instead of mandatory to own, you can't call 911 for LEO help if you don't own?
    That would prevent felons and minor children, among others, calling for help.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    That would prevent felons and minor children, among others, calling for help.
    Can write exceptions into it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by emtechnik View Post
    While I see everyone here saying that it'd be great and all, I sure hope you don't mean it.

    I would love to see a gun in every single house and on every hip in the US, what a wonderful world that would be... but what I want even more so is the right to choose to do it or not. That's liberty! The freedom to choose. Requiring everyone with a pulse to own a gun is no more constitutional or acceptable than requiring health insurance. I applaud the lawmakers in SD for doing this but I hope (and expect) it to not pass. I just hope that the libs see the double standard that they are making and the precedent that is being set.
    I agree that's their intent, and have the same objections against a government telling me I have to do something as I have against them telling me I can't do something.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ~*'Phoenix'*~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    If it allows for exceptions for unqualified persons and conscientious objection, along with following the old school virginia system of 'gov't issued to be repaid when possible if you can't afford one,' then there's no reason it shouldn't be constitutional. Just have to turn in a signature and check the box with your appropriate objection and/or disability when you turn 21 if you don't want one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •