Friday, 04 February 2011

South Dakota Bill Would Mandate Gun Ownership

Written by 

When the Obama administration and congressional Democrats decided that they could start mandating that every American citizen make purchases as dictated by the federal government, the lurch away from rule under the Constitution to living by federal diktat was clear to virtually everyone. That the mandates imposed by ObamaCare are unconstitutional has now been made clear by the courts. And now at least one legislator in South Dakota is demonstrating the absurdity of the entire endeavor through a little legislation of his own.

Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) has introduced a bill in the state legislature that would mandate that every resident of the state over the age of 21 purchase a firearm sufficient for their self-defense.

Writing for, Jonathan Ellis explains that five members of the legislature have cosponsored the bill:

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.” 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.”

It would never occur to the federal government to expect citizens to actually be responsible for their own defense — such an understanding would defy the countless reams of legislation introduced since the Roosevelt administration that require belief in the inability of Americans to defend or care for themselves in any way. But neither Wick nor his cosponsors expect their bill to in fact become law; it is, rather, a novel way of demonstrating how far Washington, D.C. has drifted from the law of the land. As Ellis explains:

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 point of these legislators is that neither the state nor federal governments should dictate that citizens must buy firearms — but it would be nice if they would stop trying to abridge the rights of the American people to defend themselves. The bizarre antics of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his effort to run a “sting” involving gun sales in Arizona illustrates the arrogance and contempt for the rule of law that can be expected out of the self-styled elite. The unconstitutional effort of the RINO former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the legislature of the Golden State to restrict the right of citizens to buy ammunition without being fingerprinted and tracked by the government also demonstrates the mindset of those who would rule over a nation, rather than serve it.

Obviously the American people do not need a law telling them to buy firearms — but neither do they need elected representatives who treat the people who elected them as if they were inmates, rather than citizens.

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media