The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on February 01, 2011, 01:21:07 PM
-
Written by
Jonathan Ellis, Argus Leader
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.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
comments at link
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
-
Interesting idea to get the anti's panties in a wad.
-
Hmm now if it just said that anyone over 21 would have to buy ANOTHER gun. "Honestly hun i have to buy a new pistol, it's the law." ;D That's legislation I would support.
-
Finally, a gun law I can support ;D
-
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
-
The Dakota's are on the "short" list of regions that will deemed Free America.
Use the broccoli argument with healthcare, and lets flex the 10th Amend. a bit....OBTW, tell Bloomberg to go ,.,.,.,. himself.
-
Interesting idea to get the anti's panties in a wad.
thats all this law is going to do...
Way to many probs with a law like this... every thing from people that physical can't use a gun, to those apposed too them.
The .gov forcing some one to buy something they don't want is wrong...
-
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
Hey TAB!!!
Did you bother to read these two paragraphs from the article?
This is a part of the United States that is mostly unspoiled by liberals getting a point across in a way that many of us understand. They have a billboard on I-90 out in the Mitchell area that says (I paraphrase because I suffer from CRS) We make our living raising livestock, from hunting and trapping. If you don't like it - LEAVE!
-
why he says he is doing it and how it will be presived are two very diffrent things.
do you think for one second some one that is against guns is going to give a rats ass why he did it or even if he knows it will never make it?
-
We're talking South Dakota here TAB! People understand what is being done and why. They may not like it, but these five are talkin' South Dakotan to South Dakotans.
To be honest, if they reworded the bill to say that every household where no disallowed person is a permanent resident is required to have a self defense gun it would probably pass by a huge margin. South Dakota is a state with a low population, and the population is condensed into very small centers. We are not only talking east and west as divided by the river, but we are talking the majority of the population being in the eastern 75 miles of the state. Most of the population still carries guns of all types in their vehicles.
The major uproar is going to come from MSM looking for brownie points with the Brady Bunch; urbanites that don't know that gravel is an acceptable type of road surface; and a population who's only knowledge of South Dakota is Mount Rushmore ... or is that in North Dakota :-\
-
now that this has made national headlines, its no longer just the people in SD that have heard about it...
-
Doesn't matter if it is guns or cars or refrigerators. The point to be made and will be made is that you can't willy nilly mandate people to purchase something from the national level. And this point is going to be made with a gun bill in a pro gun state.
What I am still waiting for is the 50/50 chance that this will be taken seriously on the floor and come close to passing before it goes down. This population is so pro-gun that I can see residents saying "finally, something to use as an excuse with the significant other that he or she can't deny" I'd love to see the Bradys have to spend a bunch on travel and advertising to make sure it isn't taken seriously.
-
The same argument could be made against this that is being made against Obummercare, You can't require everyone to purchase something. :(
-
Doesn't matter if it is guns or cars or refrigerators. The point to be made and will be made is that you can't willy nilly mandate people to purchase something from the national level. And this point is going to be made with a gun bill in a pro gun state.
What I am still waiting for is the 50/50 chance that this will be taken seriously on the floor and come close to passing before it goes down. This population is so pro-gun that I can see residents saying "finally, something to use as an excuse with the significant other that he or she can't deny" I'd love to see the Bradys have to spend a bunch on travel and advertising to make sure it isn't taken seriously.
You're wasting your breath.
-
The same argument could be made against this that is being made against Obummercare, You can't require everyone to purchase something. :(
Thanks for bringing it full circle Tom! If anyone reads the entire article they will see that that is the exact purpose of this.
-
Who reads the full article ? We depend on who ever posts it to pick out the important parts ;D
-
When I caught my kids skimming and glancing at facts I started preaching that they needed to look deeper, and I've done the same myself. I love executive summaries at the beginning of reports, but I still read the details as quick as I can. Makes me a slow reader, but once I do I don't get caught off guard nearly as often.
-
Who reads the full article ? We depend on who ever posts it to pick out the important parts ;D
How quickly we forget. Checkout the fifth post in the thread.
-
How quickly we forget. Checkout the fifth post in the thread.
Guess I could have referred to that one, but some half naked chick side tracked me last night and put me away frustrated >:(
-
Guess I could have referred to that one, but some half naked chick side tracked me last night and put me away frustrated >:(
Anyone we know?
-
Anyone we know?
Someone's avatar >:(
-
The same argument could be made against this that is being made against Obummercare, You can't require everyone to purchase something. :(
;D ;D
Forcing people to buy a gun is just as bad as forcing people not to in a free society. ;)
-
;D ;D
Forcing people to buy a gun is just as bad as forcing people not to in a free society. ;)
While I agree forcing folks to buy a gun shouldn't be done, I have to point out that it is a bit better than prohibiting them from purchasing one.
1. "For the common defense" might be one area where a government might make demands of citizens.
2. While you are force to spend your money, you retain the value of your money in the gun you purchased as it remains your property, unlike forced payments to support welfare or Obamacare where you are being forced to give others the benefit of your money.
3. While you are forced to buy the gun, you are not forced to use it for your defense or the defense of others, but you have the option to do so. By being forbidden to purchase a gun, you are also denied the primary means of defending yourself and others.
-
One thing that I overlooked. Several states on the East Coast never repealed their Colonial era "Militia laws" that required the ownership of a "firelock" and a set number of cartridges. It may be wrong for the Feds to mandate the purchase of something, but the precedent for the States to do so, specifically guns, predates the Constitution and was strengthened by the Kennasaw Ga. law requiring fire arms.
-
Well, I'm from SD and I thought everyone there already had a gun. The law should read : Everyone must buy another gun.
-
Well, I'm from SD and I thought everyone there already had a gun. The law should read : Everyone must buy another gun.
+100
Can we make that a federal thingy ;D