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

[OakRidgeStars]

A chicken in every pot and a gun in every nightstand...

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun

http://tinyurl.com/66zbwzd

[Sotiris]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a town in GA where every citizen is already required to own a firearm.

Very good to hear a state pushing that, even if it doesn't have much chance of passing

[WRW]

...if you cannot afford a gun, one will be provided for you by the State...

[NRB451]

Always proud of my native State!

[wylde007]

This would be no more Constitutional than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.

Just as I should have a right to own firearms, I must recognize the right of others to choose not to.

[TheGodfather]

This would be no more Constitutional than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.

Just as I should have a right to own firearms, I must recognize the right of others to choose not to.

Just an FYI, this is in the first article:

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.

[wylde007]

Ah, so even without having read the article ( ) I came to the proper conclusion.

How about that.

[OleMan]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a town in GA where every citizen is already required to own a firearm.

Very good to hear a state pushing that, even if it doesn't have much chance of passing

It's Kennesaw, GA in Cobb county. They passed the ordinance in reaction to some town in IL outlawing all guns - early '80s I think. Some reports shave said that gun sales went up, crime went down, and has stayed down.

I don't think anyone in Kennesaw has tried to test the constitutionality. Can't remember where, but I recently read that the first Federal 'gun control' law was to require all able bodied men to have a firearm.

From what I have read: Switzerland has mandated, long term universal military service requirements; and fully automatic battle rifles and ammunition are kept in the citizen soldier's home after training. Officers get handguns. Formerly, bolt or semi-auto military rifles were given to the citizen soldier after completion of his military service. Now a de-activated soldier can buy a goverment issue rifle (not full auto) at a nominal price.

Oleman

[DWinter]

This would be no more Constitutional than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.

Just as I should have a right to own firearms, I must recognize the right of others to choose not to.

I was thinking the same thing and then read the health care statement. Interesting way of proving a point. To bad it's another waste of time, taxpayer money and resources.

Could you imagine the fall out if it was to pass though? Hell, if they just had saltwater there and not so dang cold, I'd consider a move.

[jim100]

How about instead of forcing everybody to buy a gun just provide the guns at like 90% off?


And I agree that forcing everybody to own a gun is just as bad as forcing health care on everybody, because it is still an abuse of governmental powers.

Though it is one of the more interesting ones

[gunderwood]

I don't think anyone in Kennesaw has tried to test the constitutionality. Can't remember where, but I recently read that the first Federal 'gun control' law was to require all able bodied men to have a firearm.

They do have the power to provide for the common defense. VA and other states have had similar statues throughout their history, particularly when we still had militias. The law usually required that they have a firearm which was fit for military duty. They didn't have to buy it, they just needed access to it. Some states or localities actually had public armories which provided the guns for the militia.

The Swiss have a similar set up and it isn't all that different than what we do today technically. We are forced to pay taxes which fund our military. Most of the militia laws just cut out the middle man. The Swiss pay taxes to purchase guns which their militia force must keep at home. There are several variations on the theme.

The simplest expression which defines the government is this: Government is the negation of liberty.

That's exactly why we created it. The government is there to regulate and restrict liberties and provide protection when they cross ethical boundaries. There is no use for government if it can not restrict liberty in some fashion. This is also why the founders were so afraid of unchecked government. As Washington put it:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Constitutional government is exactly that, the limited restriction of liberty by an entity we the people have empowered. National defense is one power we did give them (although we could take it back technically, but probably not practically). Unlike health care, national defense is explicitly specified as a function of the Federal government. Given that, they do have the power to restrict liberty in order to provide for it. Many states have similar provisions in their constitutions. However, notice it says provide. It means they provision, they train, they organize. It doesn't not mean that anything the Federal government claims is national defense is so. For example, "provide for" does not mean they can not declare martial law. It is this way in VA as well.

Our Constitution specifically says that our liberties can not be suspended without the legislature voting on it and it must be an emergency provision (which has much higher standards than >50% to pass) or else it doesn't go into effect until July 1st. Even then our Constitution requires that it be for a defined period and not limitless. The Federal government has no specified authority to suspend any part of the Constitution for any reason.

The question is: how do we wish to enable the Federal and State government to provide for the common defense? I.e. how do we wish to fund and organize our defenses? One way is for each citizen to provide for themselves rather than pay taxes. General service like a militia or a professional army are other choices. Etc. We gave them the power for national defense because war was an ethical trespass on the nation; the government needed the power to make sure no outsider could destroy our liberties, just as LE was suppose to make sure our fellow citizens didn't do the same internally. That's the purpose of the law and our constitutions; they set the ground rules for the limited restriction of liberty. We have anything but that today.

[zephyp]

This would be no more Constitutional than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.

Just as I should have a right to own firearms, I must recognize the right of others to choose not to.

Very big difference here. Its called the 10th amendment. States can indeed - Constitutionally - mandate the purchase of certain items. Car insurance is a good example. Federal government cannot, at least according to my copy of the Constitution.

[gunderwood]

This would be no more Constitutional than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.

Just as I should have a right to own firearms, I must recognize the right of others to choose not to.

Very big difference here. Its called the 10th amendment. States can indeed - Constitutionally - mandate the purchase of certain items. Car insurance is a good example. Federal government cannot, at least according to my copy of the Constitution.

A good point.

The Federal government could require that states provide a militia force and regulate what the minimum standard are for such a force. Each state could then decide how to fund and train such a militia. The military is a very interesting discussion because it actually is something the Federal government has the power to provide for and there are many alternatives, each with pros and cons.

A militia force has several benefits over a professional military.

1. It is much harder to fight foreign wars if the people aren't for them. It no longer is sending a group of people we will be paying to be soldiers anyways, but rather sending ourselves. It raises the bar a bit and helps protect the republic against wars which only politicians want.

2. Common experience. Countries which everyone serves for a few years and then goes on reserve status have a common experience, they know what it means to prepare for war and they understand they aren't sending some nameless, faceless group to fight. We suffer from the lack of this to some degree. We send the "military" to war and then are shocked that <insert name and rank here> had to die.

3. Emergency services and crises management. We wouldn't need FEMA and the military to step in during events like hurricane Katrina as much as they did. The local militia would already be trained to organize and provide for their local community without outside help which could take days to get there. Also, the average citizen may be much better prepared than we are today, particularly if we adopted a system like the Swiss where their guns, ammo, and other supplies were kept at home. I.e. the average person would have field medical skills and supplies at home, know how to protect against looters, etc.

4. Funding would be easier too IMHO. Right now we send it to a faceless bureaucracy rather than to a locally organized defense force. It's easier to see where the money goes and you get to know your local defenders. IMHO, this is a huge advantage for local forces, LE or otherwise. The small town sheriff actually knows his citizens so he is less likely to treat them as common criminals. The military aside, I think more localized LE services would be a great idea.

There is no perfect system so a militia force also has cons when compared to a professional military.

1. Specialization is an issue, but not one that we can't overcome. IMHO, there still is a need for "full time" soldiers. We use to have a real VA military academy which would train our militia officers for a lifetime of service. That was a good thing IMHO. We need people who are willing to dedicate their lives to the defense of their communities, their state, and their nation. Of course, we need taxes to pay for such a professional branch and probably the best level to do that at is at the state.

2. The same autonomy which keeps us out of wars has a penalty in our fighting efficiency for a mediocre war. If we are split on the war effort, some states may refuse to send their militia force. However, while that is a potential problem I would suggest that the benefits more than make up for it. There is no military force as effective as well trained citizens who decide for themselves to go fight. There is a big difference between being sent and choosing to go. Heaven help the foe who faces an army of well trained, well armed citizens who are choosing to fight as a matter of self defense.

3. Integration issues at the Federal level. Local forces are great for protecting the citizenry and their rights, but when facing a large external foe, forces from southern states need to fight to protect northern states and vice versa. This also can be overcome.


You can break down all the different ideas and explore their pros and cons. The Constitution doesn't specify exactly how the Federal government is to provide for the common defense. Kind of like welfare we have become lazy and have chosen the solution which puts the least responsibility on non-military personal...just send money as long as we don't actually have to do anything else.

[OleMan]

Gunderwood, I'm not going to quote all your last two posts, but they show a lot of thought and balanced thinking - very good points in them. After reading them, it struck me that the founding fathers intended that the "militia" be the male population (all that were able). Also, there is plenty of room to have a highly proficient specialized Federal military (in which we almost have to include the National Guard since they are so often called up) AND have state militias which help law enforcement when needed, help emergency services and, with additional training, can form a foundation for an expanded military when mandated in time of war - like when we are attacked or Federal forces are fighing a war abroad.

Maybe such an arrangement would change "gun control" into training citizen militia members, reduce crime (too many citizens with guns at home and on their person) and keep people directly involved in their own well being. I think it would be a win, win but our Congresspersons and Federal Judges (especially from the Left) would probably either stop it or "regulate" it to death.

Do we possibly have the kernel here in Virginia?
http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia
http://www.virginiacitizenmilitia.org/#where

Great posts - methinks you are a Patriot sir.

[nygunbroker]

Best thing that could happen! More guns =Less Crime
A gun in every Home !