"Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun"
This bill is really done to show the absurdity of the federal health care law.
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. . . .
Labels: GunControl, healthcare
posted by John Lott at 11:54 AM
3 Comments:
Problem is that a lot of people miss the separation of powers that the Feds have vs what the states have. I was discussing the health care bill with a friend yesterday and he retorted that "states require auto insurance". He seems to miss the point of fact of Article I Section 8 and the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Not being familiar with SD's constitution, I'm not certain how requiring citizens of a given state to own/bear arms would be a constitutional violation. There is in fact a standing requirement for citizens TO have arms vis a vis militia service.
Certainly nothing new ala Kennesaw Georgia.
Bad analogy. The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"
...Of course, you only HAVE to buy auto insurance if you buy a car, and so far, the government hasn't mandated that you buy car.
Post a Comment
<< Home