Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Zoom-boing]

Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.

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.

They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.

Ahh just more frivilous bill submitting, burning up govt dollars then?

It would seem so. They know it won't pass and are doing it just to make a point which doesn't mean much because it's up to the courts to decide.

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Wait a minute....

Oh look, 1 person gets it...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not at all true.
The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.

Have you aver looked at the Constitution?
See Article I section 8.

And?

It describes the explicit enumerated powers of Congress - that is, the powers of federal government.
Some of them, anyway - there are many other powers specifically granted to various parts of the government.

 

[Avorysuds]

Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.

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.

They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.

Ahh just more frivilous bill submitting, burning up govt dollars then?

YES... Just like the HC bill... are you getting it yet?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's the real reason for the second amendment..by the way.

So that the people would always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise their right to self denese?
Why yes - you are correct.

Collective defense of the nation.

If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?

 

[Sallow]

Have you aver looked at the Constitution?
See Article I section 8.

And?

It describes the explicit enumerated powers of Congress - that is, the powers of federal government.
Some of them, anyway - there are many other powers specifically granted to various parts of the government.

They are not "explicit" they are very board.

I will help out here:

ex·plic·it   /ɪkˈsplɪsɪt/ Show Spelled
[ik-splis-it] Show IPA

–adjective
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
Explicit | Define Explicit at Dictionary.com

broad   /brɔd/ Show Spelled
[brawd] Show IPA
adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun
–adjective
1. of great breadth: The river was too broad to swim across.
2. measured from side to side: The desk was three feet broad.
3. of great extent; large: the broad expanse of ocean.
4. widely diffused; open; full: We awoke to broad daylight.
5. not limited or narrow; of extensive range or scope: A modern doctor must have a broad knowledge of medicine.
6. liberal; tolerant: A broad interpretation of the law tempers justice with mercy.
7. main or general: the broad outlines of a subject.
8. plain or clear: Her remark was a broad hint of her feelings.
9. bold; plain-spoken.

Lets check out the first few powers for Congress:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Thats about as broad as you can get.

 

[Sallow]

So that the people would always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise their right to self denese?
Why yes - you are correct.

Collective defense of the nation.

If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?

Because they didn't write "person" they wrote "people" as in Collective. And some have pointed out that at the time, people and militia were concepts that were interchangable.

 

[konradv]

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.

How so? I thought the righties were all happy today, because forcing someone to buy something was declared unconstitutional. I guess it only matters whose goose is being cooked!!!

 

[uptownlivin90]

Every law abiding citizen who has sense in their head should own a gun and should know how to handle, secure, and fire this weapon.

There shouldn't be a law to mandate it. There should be a law that the feds can't restict people from doing it though.

Oh wait... there's a constitutional amendment about that, huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And?

It describes the explicit enumerated powers of Congress - that is, the powers of federal government.
Some of them, anyway - there are many other powers specifically granted to various parts of the government.

They are not "explicit" they are very board.

Only to someone that wants the government to do someting it was not given the power to do.
:roll:

 

[M14 Shooter]

Collective defense of the nation.

If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?

Because they didn't write "person" they wrote "people" as in Collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.

And so, the question stands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

How so? I thought the righties were all happy today, because forcing someone to buy something was declared unconstitutional. I guess it only matters whose goose is being cooked!!!

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

 

[xotoxi]

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

Is Basil Marceaux.com the governor of SD?

 

[Avorysuds]

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



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

How so? I thought the righties were all happy today, because forcing someone to buy something was declared unconstitutional. I guess it only matters whose goose is being cooked!!!

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

He is so busy being a smart ass he does not even know how dumb he looks.

 

[gekaap]

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.

This is not true. Completely unfounded. There are many powers that the federal government has that states do not have. Likewise, there are many powers that states have that the federal government does not. But overall, it is the federal government that has the broader powers (mint money, make treaties, establish diplomacy, provide copyrights and patents, make war, etc.) while the states have more narrow powers, and are inferior to federal law. Additionally, the constitutionality of government requiring a citizen to purchase a product is irrelevant to whether it is state or federal government doing it. If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional.

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.

This is completely untrue, and the entire history of law in this country rejects this idea. The "necessary but proper" clause gives the federal government broad power to pass laws as long as they do not violate a protected right, and serve a legitimate government interest. On the other hand, if we look at the constitution of Texas for comparison, that constitution does require explicit power be granted for the state to act in a given area. Thus, amendments to the state constitution are proposed every election cycle, for rather menial things as building railroads. The federal constitution is not as restrictive.

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.

Just like the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not limit the rights of the people nor the states, the "necessary and proper" clause gives broad powers to the federal government beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution. The constitutional test when this concept comes into play is whether a legitimate government interest is served.

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.

On this, I agree. This law is not unconstitutional just because some people may not like it, nor is the health care bill unconstitutional because people may not like it.

 

[Sallow]

If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?

Because they didn't write "person" they wrote "people" as in Collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.

And so, the question stands.

Lemme help you with that..

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The thing about a "gotcha" is you actually have to know what the heck you are talking about.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You are applauding a law telling people what they HAVE to buy? Aw Lawdie! The Irony in this!

 

[bodecea]

Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.

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.

They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.

Actually, I'm laughing at the OP.

 

[gekaap]

I'm shaking my head over people arguing over person, persons, or people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lemme help you with that..

Yes. Allow me.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You may now admit your error, and then address the question:
If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?