Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[JBeukema]

Daily Kos: Big story: HCR ruled unconstitutional. Little story: 14 judges disagree..

 

[JBeukema]

in two previous cases a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.

 

[JBeukema]

Sen. Hatch Calls Ruling Against Mandate He Once Sponsored "A Great Day For Liberty" | Political Correction

 

[JBeukema]

The Plum Line - Legal expert: Ruling on health reform is "very defective" and "will be overturned"

 

[JBeukema]

The Volokh Conspiracy The Significant Error in Judge Hudson’s Opinion

 

[JBeukema]

The Militia Act of 1792

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Militia Act of 1792

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

And if they would have had selective fire weapons back then they would have required every citizens to have one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

I was wondering the same thing.

Pretty soon, we'll be seeing a bill that ensures that every citizen shop at Walmart once each quarter.

Being selective aren't we?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....

Wait a minute....

I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.

You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.

A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people.

Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

It's clearly constitutional at the Federal Level. I'm not familiar with South Dakota's Constitution, but if they have nothing prohibitting it, then it's clearly constitutional even if it's stupid.

Not at all true.

The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.

The 10th amendment says you're wrong

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting responses from the anti-gun loons that support The Obamas mandate that everyoe buy health insurance.
They know there's no way to argue against this and yet still support His mandate - so they obfuscate, deflect and misdirect.

How predictable.

You should have known that when you started the thread just as I did when I started the same thread.

 

[8537]

You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

The federal government requires car insurance? Since when?

The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago. I think the founders knew a bit about what the founders believed.

 

[JohnA]

You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

WRONG states regulate car insurance

And to make it clearer for you to understand

you only HAVE to have car insurance if you use your vehicle on public owned roads STATE law
some states allow non insured vehicles i( a pay as you go tax ) and there is traders insurance for example
it you dont drive or own a vehicle you dont have to buy it
banks insist on insurance when you buy the car on a loan
you DONT have to have comprehensive insurance just enough to cover any damage you do to others when you are at fault
in certain circumstances you can self insure your vehicle
there is a wide range of premiums on car insurance according to whether you have a large deductable . your age , liability , number of drivers , etc etc

None of this equates to a mandated health insurance you may not need or want
so lets stop this foolishness of compering auto insurance to mandated health insurance

its completely differant

 

[Kato]

The Militia Act of 1792

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

We are not living in 1792.

 

[edthecynic]

Do you not understand the difference between a state and the federal government? If you don't, I will simply point out, again, that there are no national laws covering immunization. Period.

So you are saying that the federal government is prohibited from acting in the common good by the US Constitution.

Where did I say that?

You made the claim that the federal government not only has the power to require vaccinations, but that it, in fact, does so by pointing out that you had to get vaccinated before you went overseas. Then you tried to prove your point by citing a case that says a state can impose mandatory vaccinations.

I will reply, again, the federal government does not have a mandatory vaccination program. Period.

You really should stop trying to twist my words into something I am not saying and simply admit you were wrong.

You first!

What I said was that SD does have the power to require people to buy a gun the same as they have the power to compel people to get vaccinated. I never said the fed has such a program. When a poster claimed that the power to mandate vaccinations was limited only to the states, I challenged that by pointing out a SCOTUS case that established that compelling vaccinations was Constitutional because it served the common good. The SCOTUS decission set no limit to the states alone on the government acting in the common good. So far, no one who has claimed the power to act in the common good was limited to the states has been able to Constitutionally back it up. They, like you, can only pontificate or go off on a tangent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Militia Act of 1792

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

We are not living in 1792.

ok so would you also like to see the 1st amendment done away with?

 

[JohnA]

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.

Who cares?

Our healthcare system sucks. Every other industrialized nation in the world has national healthcare, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

trus and not true
yes they do pay less for per capita for health care
one of the reasons health care is expensive here is the insurance preniums doctors have to pay for liability insurance because the trial lawyers ( democrats ) wont let the federal govt limited the damages
another reason folks who dont have insurance ( illegals mostly ) get treatment at govt funded hospitals for *free * the cost is added to the bill of those that do have it .

QUESTION why do you think that a health system run by the fed govt would provide health care at a *lower * cost than it is today ??
history tells us otherwise


ALL govt run projects social or otherwise ARE

overbudgeted
full of waste
constantly in the red
over staffed .

tell me one that isnt ?
what makes you think govt run health care will fare any differant ?
the health industry in this country does need to be overhauled
BUT OBOMA CARE IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.

Awww, skippy....
You're confusing two seperate things.

Background checks? Unconstitutional. Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns? Constitutional. Never have I said otherwise.

Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.

Seperate issues, sport.

Doubt me at your own peril.

I laugh at you. Ha.

You're fucking retarded.

If the prohibition of felons owning guns is constitutional then the enforcement is constitutional; a background check is an enforcement.

BTW, it has nothing to do with 'prior restraint' where you got that is a mystery.

By your logic, every background check for every reason is unconstitutional.

Anyone agree with this idiot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.

Awww, skippy....
You're confusing two seperate things.

Background checks? Unconstitutional. Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns? Constitutional. Never have I said otherwise.

Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.

Seperate issues, sport.

Doubt me at your own peril.

I laugh at you. Ha.

Back to my other point, where I said by your logic this SD law would require felons to own guns.

How would they disqualify felons if they could not do a background check on them to see if they WERE felons?

 

[GHook93]

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

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I think the precedence has set that you can't require Americans to buy anything. Although I applaud their effort. In a very rural atmosphere, many homeowners are very vulnerable to cowardly Home Invading Predators. I mean, I protect my house and family with a Saiga 12 20 barrel drum Shotgun and a Springfield XDM 13 round 45 (I also have the Springfield 9mm, but I prefer the 45 when dealing with a home invader) and I live in the burbs with the Police about a 10 min call away!

 

[Bfgrn]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

Don't you know...when government saves lives it is EVIL...but when it takes lives it is just doing God's work.

Conservative Nanny State