Posted on 02/01/2011 9:40:23 AM PST by Fawn
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at community.history.com ...
SD used to have a program, in which state residents could buy an AR-15 at a substancial discount. 1 per legal age resident.
Now, I would like to see that program come back. These rifles could be used for Antelope and White tail deer, as well as prarie dogs.
But, I do take issue with ANY Gov’t group mandating that I buy anything. Cars, guns, insurance ... anything.
Yup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=related
Much less threatening than ObamaCare of course because the people of the state can overturn it with a referendum, or those who they can move to another state.
Individual mandate, likely unconstitutional.
The government should not be able to force people to do that. Anymore than force them to buy healthcare insurance.
I am surprised by the number of replies that are missing that.....
Like the idea of arming everybody but it is unconstitutional.
I need to move to SD. Maybe I’ll wait until after winter.
Are you saying that states don’t fall under the US Constitution? Sorry but this law is unconstitutional. Governments can not force people to buy anything. That includes both health insurance and guns.
The gun manufacturers write this bill?
Simply ludicrous.
To those who raise the Constitutional issue, my state (Texas) has for years required all motor vehicle owners to purchase liability insurance. Of course, if you don’t own a car, truck, etc. you don’t have to buy the insurance. This (S.D.) law seems to have no such predicate.... What does the state consitution say?
I don’t think the government should subsidies any corporations, even gun makers.
That is what this is.
So what guns go with what politicians?
I live in Georgia, near Kennesaw, GA, which had the same law several (15?) years back.
Of course it was never enforced but it caused multiple liberal heads to explode.
mandatory national service is slavery to the state.
Compulsory military service? Perhaps not a bad idea to whip some of the upcoming Yutes into shape and give them some dicipline.
| The founders were alive and in the legislature in 1792 when the Militia Act was passed. They knew what was in the Constitution. Specifically Article 1 Section 8 and I quote (in part). |
| "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" |
| The Militia Act of 1792 is completely consistent with that objective. Again I quote in part... |
| " That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service" |
| http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm |
Hey. If The Kenyan can require you to buy health insurance, any state can require you to buy a firearm. Touche’.
Wow a law I can actually get behind!!!
See post 37. The gov CAN constitutionally require you to own a gun. Period. Militia Act of 1792 was clearly constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.