• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
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. :shocker:
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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 :lol:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

emtechnik

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
44
Location
Maple Valley, WA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

emtechnik

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
44
Location
Maple Valley, WA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

ldsgeek

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
103
Location
New Hampshire
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.:lol:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
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
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.:lol:

As I would propose there should be opt out priviledges such as in Kennesaw, Georgia.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/kennesaw-ga-where-guns-are-mandatory-part-2/blog-29299/
 
Top