South Dakota Pols Introduce Bill Requiring All Citizens to Own a Gun

[RunningOnMT]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sout...-to-own-a-gun/

South Dakota Pols Introduce Bill Requiring All Citizens to Own a Gun

A group of of South Dakota state lawmakers is trying to make a point about the federal government’s individual mandate that everyone must have health insurance. Their method of choice? Introduce a bill that everyone in the state own a gun.

The five politicians recently introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.” The bill would take effect January 1, 2012 and would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. It would not, however, apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

While ownership would be mandated, the type of firearm would not. Instead, citizens could choose any gun “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

According to the local paper the Argus Leader, the bill’s sponsors admit the legislation is a stunt:

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 mandates aren’t completely synonymous, as Gawker points out, since state and federal powers differ. Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air recognizes that (so too does Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit), but also wonders if the bill is so cheeky that it could end up backfiring:

While I see what he’s doing here, and it’s a valid argument to make, I’m still not thrilled with the path he has chosen to make his point. We’ve seen other proposals in the past – in Georgia and Texas just to name two – which were far less tongue in cheek and they seem to uniformly hurt the effort to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. It plays to the popular, media driven theme of “gun nuts” versus responsible gun owners.

Further, it clouds the basic argument. The constitution takes great pains to assure the rights of Americans as to what they may do, not what they must do. We all have freedom of speech, but that includes the right to remain silent. (A lesson sadly lost on many modern politicians.)

[hunter29180]

umm, sort of like th Swiss? where every citizen over 18 had to serve in the military and then were life long reservest, required to keep theit military firearm and also spend range time with it...sure keeps crime down and other countries think twice about invading!

sounds like a good idea to me!

[armedandsafe]

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Gun Ownership - It's The
Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail...on=Home%20Page
3-14-1


KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

...

There is a very large difference in a State requiring citizens to be lawfully armed and the US Government requiring citizens to purchase a commodity. Also note that Kennesaw built in several caveats for those who didn't want to arm themselves for religous or objector reasons.

Pops

[mncarpenter]

Ya gotta love South Dakota-my favorite state.-funny thing is I thought everyone in SD already owned guns, usually a bunch of 'em

[Marlin T]

This is a great story, I hope that it passes!

[RunningOnMT]

As pro gun as I am, I'd be seriously bothered if something like this were to pass in my state. I just have a natural resistance to being forced to do anything.

The government forcing you to do or purchase something is distasteful to me. Hell, even as a veteran I've always been uncomfortable with drafting the unwilling into the military.

As nice as it is to be able to cite gun ownership's effect on the crime rates in Kennesaw, it still seems like a draft in a way...forcing people into becomming agents of law enforcement. I'd keep a gun or guns in my home and carry willingly, but would bristle at being forced to.

What bothers me most about the story is that the law makers who introduced the bill in S.D. aren't serious and are attempting to make an absurd statement to mock nationalized healthcare. That seems to backfire to me, and shows that they don't take a citizens right to keep and bear arms seriously.

[Rocketman1]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

What bothers me most about the story is that the law makers who introduced the bill in S.D. aren't serious and are attempting to make an absurd statement to mock nationalized healthcare. That seems to backfire to me, and shows that they don't take a citizens right to keep and bear arms seriously.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that statment.

I would also like to know how much time and (tax payer money) they wasted comming up with this bill.

I remember reading somewhere awhile back, perhaps on thi sweb site, about a local mayor that did exacly what they are proposing, requiring everyone in his city to own a gun. Ring a bell anyone?

[hogger129]

I don't agree with forcing anybody to buy anything. If someone doesn't want to own a gun, that's their choice.

Just as I don't think someone should be required to buy health insurance.

The freedom to choose is what makes us free people.

[armedandsafe]

Miliita membership and attendance at drills and training has been mandatory from the very beginning of this country. It was also so in the country which preceded us. I enter the information below to give you an idea of what one of our Founders thought of Militia service.

James Madison, Militia Bill, House of Representatives

16 Dec. 1790Papers 13:323
Mr. Madison moved, to strike out that part which related to the members of Congress, with their officers and servants attending either house, and to insert the members of the House of Representatives, whilst travelling to, attending at, or returning from the session of Congress, and the members of the Senate in similar circumstances, or in case of a separate session of the Senate. He did not see any reason for a total exemption from the service of the militia, and it was a principle with him, that on every occasion where an exception was made in favour of the framers of a law, that exception should not be extended or carried beyond what is evidently proper and necessary. Now to exempt the members of Congress at all times is unnecessary, because during the recess of the houses, they may be at liberty to pursue their ordinary avocations, and participate in the duties and exercises of their fellow-citizens. They ought ever to bear a share of the burthens they lay on others, in order that their acts may not slide into an abuse of the power vested in them.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_6_1s15.html

The part he struck and modified was the part which totally excused members of the House and Senate from Militia duty. So, in 1790, membership and participation in the Militia was mandatory.

Certain equipment was required for Militia duty, including "a gun of common use at the time." Lookng at the Founders ideas of what constituted the Militia is interesting and informative.

(President) Washington had been unable to push a federal militia bill through Congress in either 1789 or 1790. In February 1792, while debate over the expanded Regular Army continued, Congress finally began detailed consideration of two bills which, known collectively as the Militia Act of 1792, passed in early May. This legislation rejected separating militiamen into two distinct classes.

The reformers had clearly failed to convince a majority that the current situation warranted either the expense or the political risk of such tight federal control. Instead, the Militia Act compromised, allowing the President to mobilize the citizen-soldiers when necessary and to set national, but non-binding, standards for organization and training. This arrangement, identical to the one discussed during the writing of the Constitution's militia clause, was accepted because it still left the individual states with major control over their militia. The reformers might lament the fact that the efficiency of the citizen-soldiers would continue to depend ultimately on local rather than national initiatives, but they could read progress in the general acceptance of the notion of a national standard and in the new law's provision for the organization of volunteer groups who purchased their own uniforms and underwent extra military training to become elite "flank" companies in the militia regiments. Everyone understood that under normal circumstances only these men would be mobilized. Despite some minor modifications, this law would remain in force until the creation of the modern National Guard in 1903.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/ch5.htm

Compulsory service during emergencies, border conflicts, war and invasions was understood and expected. The Constitution was written with a clause which allowed the Militia to be called out, as the occasion demanded.

The draft, attending meetings and training, possessing some certain equipment and keeping certain government officials informed of one's location and situation was common and expected.

Keep in mind that the Militia was more than just the National Guard. Originally, they were neighborhood watch, volunteer fire department, night watch, law enforcement, and oversaw the welfare of persons who were unable to care for themselves. The Militia has a long and proud history and is as integral to our strength as a nation and people as the Constitution itself.

The basic concept is that, if you have accepted this as your country, are of good health and sound moral character, you are a member of the Militia. In today's world, the fact that participation is supposed to be mandatory is forgotten in favor of bashing the members of the Regular Military services.

Pops

[pandamonium]

^^^^^^WHAT HE SAID!!!!^^^^^^

Correct and well written Sir!

[RunningOnMT]

I was under the impression that this country never had a draft until the civil war. As I see it, an able bodied man has a moral obligation to serve his country but the idea of a draft seems wrong on several levels.

When I was in nam and all the anti-war demonstrations were going on, the last one I wanted covering my butt was some left wing nit wit that didn't want to be there. Not only that but it just seems wrong to force someone to take up arms in a conflict he truly does not believe in. I'm not speaking of only the conscientious objectors who don't believe in war for any reason, but those who may see a particular was as wrong or unjust.

Ultimately every man has to answer to God for his actions, and it is wrong for the nation to compel anyone to kill for a cause he feels is not necessary for the protection of the nation. It's always seemed to me that if there is a just reason for this country to go to war, that there'd be enough volunteers and those who choose to stay home do so to their own shame.

[redwing carson]

The American form of government is defferent. The states that make up the union can be and are different. In recent decades the Federal government has forced more central control on the states. The orginal intent was that Americans could vote with their feet. If you did not like the laws in one state you could remove yourself to a state that fit your needs. The folks in ND feel comfortable with this law, so be it their choice is what is important. If you are not comfortable with this law don't move to ND.

RC