Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

[Hazcat]

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

[JC5123]

Interesting idea to get the anti's panties in a wad.

[nupe]

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."   That's legislation I would support.

[tombogan03884]

Finally, a gun law I can support 

[Ichiban]

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.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

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.

[TAB]

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... 

[MikeBjerum]

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!

[TAB]

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?

[MikeBjerum]

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