Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
The dems would shoot this down using the same argument the republicans are on healthcare. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
Hunley said:
The dems would shoot this down using the same argument the republicans are on healthcare. :roll:
“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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Hunley said:
The dems would shoot this down using the same argument the republicans are on healthcare. :roll:
Not quite. The 10th amendment argument is a restriction on the federal government, not state ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
ookoshi said:
Hunley said:
The dems would shoot this down using the same argument the republicans are on healthcare. :roll:
Not quite. The 10th amendment argument is a restriction on the federal government, not state ones.
The authors of the bill introduced it almost as satire to the healthcare bill. As stated in the article.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
dcannon1 said:
The authors of the bill introduced it almost as satire to the healthcare bill. As stated in the article.
I understand, but what I'm saying is, it is my belief that the state of South Dakota can in fact require its citizens to own a firearm, so long as it is not against federal law for that person to possess a firearm, as nothing in the U.S. constitution, and presumably nothing in the state constitution, restricts the state from being able to pass such a law.

Similarly, it is why the law in Kennesaw is legal, until such law is preempted by the state.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
True... the right way to do it is to require S. Dakotans to possess a firearm :)
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
I would be opposed to any bill like this. My grandmother hates guns, mostly from her work as a nurse in WW2 and as an ER nurse for years, and that's fine with me. I would oppose any law that required her to get one.

That said if it was a law, I'd buy two, and say one of them was hers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
It's pretty sad when state representatives fail at simple Constitutional ideas. Such a law, would, in fact be legal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,556 Posts
the comments from the readers lead me to believe the circulation of the ARGUS LEADER is limited to lib's :screwy:
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,894 Posts
ookoshi said:
dcannon1 said:
The authors of the bill introduced it almost as satire to the healthcare bill. As stated in the article.
I understand, but what I'm saying is, it is my belief that the state of South Dakota can in fact require its citizens to own a firearm, so long as it is not against federal law for that person to possess a firearm, as nothing in the U.S. constitution, and presumably nothing in the state constitution, restricts the state from being able to pass such a law.

Similarly, it is why the law in Kennesaw is legal, until such law is preempted by the state.
Ookoshi is right.

I don't agree with forcing this on everyone in a state, but at the same time, it is lawful if passed. It holds constitutional muster as long as nothing in the State Constitution or laws restrict the law from passing.

I mean, if the Feds can force healthcare down our throats because of the "commerce clause" States should be able to force guns on people if its legal and holds up to judicial review. It doesn't make it right, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
EJR914 said:
I don't agree with forcing this on everyone in a state, but at the same time, it is lawful if passed. It holds constitutional muster as long as nothing in the State Constitution or laws restrict the law from passing.

I mean, if the Feds can force healthcare down our throats because of the "commerce clause" States should be able to force guns on people if its legal and holds up to judicial review. It doesn't make it right, though.
I definitely don't agree with the "force you to own X" mentality. I own fire extinguishers because it's a smart thing to do, not because some government official passed a law forcing it. I own guns because I believe they're the most effective way to defend my family and home, not because some government official passed a law forcing it. Etc, etc.

I am less bothered by the legality of such a law than I am with the "ethicality" of the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,447 Posts
It's neat though how some here scream ITS GREAT, while the same people complain about the Federal Gov is forcing Healthcare down out throats. It's only a good thing when it assists in accomplishing ones personal agenda correct?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,102 Posts
Is it constitutional for a state to force everybody to buy a gun whether they want one or not, based on the (very controversial and difficult-to-prove) notion that the more armed citizens we have, the safer we all will be?

Can the state force us all to buy treadmills and indoor exercise bicycles? Lack of cardiovascular exercise is a major health problem in every State.

Can our state demand that we all buy and install alarm systems in our homes--fire alarms, burglar alarms, or both? Certainly that would make us safer. No doubt it would. But what if we don't want to pay for it and are willing to take the risks to save money?

Under current legal theories and principles, state governments have a general police power to pass a wide variety of laws intended to promote public health, welfare, safety, and even morals. If these laws are not targeted at minorities or some other suspect class (groups that have traditionally been discriminated against), then the law will nearly always be upheld as long as the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. The law doesn't have to SOLVE the problem it is intended to address, just take a step in that direction.

I'd get rid of rational basis scrutiny. Every law is a restriction on individuals' freedom to choose how to live their lives, what risks to take, and how they want to interact with the world. I would demand that EVERY LAW on any subject pass a higher level of scrutiny from the courts. The government's interest must be strong, the harm to be guarded against must be real and imminent, not speculative, and not trivial. And the law must be at least moderately effective while being minimally burdensome to the people. And anybody who has special circumstances that would make obeying that law unusually burdensome to him or her would be able to petition a court for a permit to be excused from that law.

That's what I'd do if I were appointed the sole Supreme Court Justice for life.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
Not worried; it's just poorly worded. All they need to do is copy Kennesaw's ordinance on the matter and everything's fine.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
No purchase required, only the responsibility to maintain and an exemption for those who cannot/will not. Nothing more onerous than requiring people to cover their nekkidness or keep their sidewalks clean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Born and raised there. Everyone already has firearms. There really isn't anything else to do but hunt or fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Viking said:
Born and raised there. Everyone already has firearms. There really isn't anything else to do but hunt or fish.
True enough! I don't think anyone in Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, or South Dakota, is without a firearm. "Match10", .....Speak up! Folks in that region take great pride in being "cowboys!" I have the pleasure of visiting Jackson Hole and Sun Valley, along with many other areas in the region. Those folks know how to live!
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,894 Posts
I visited Jackson Hole and Yellowstone for about a week a piece after high school. I'd live in or around Jackson Hole for the rest of my life if I could. I really liked it out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily.com

Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw â€" responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. â€" unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting â€" as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available â€" for the year 2005 â€" show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Read more: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196#ixzz1DLWHaNfX
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top