South Dakota, where you MUST own a gun

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KingCracker**

Before the typical guns are stupid, they only kill people blah blah blah Americans blah blah. I would like to see some actual, good discussion on this. I personally think, making it into law could be a bad thing. I personally dont like the idea of making someone have a firearm, that wouldnt/shouldnt have one. Kindda like the draft, how most military personnel say theyd rather have someone there to watch their back, that WANTS to be there, not someone forced to be there. I rather like the idea of gun owners being responsible and owning firearms because they want to, not because they have too.

Discuss

http://www.guns.com/south-dakota-lawmakers-push-for-mandatory-gun-ownership-video.html

In the tradition of A Modest Proposal, five South Dakota lawmakers are pushing for a piece of legislation that would require all citizens, 21 and older, to purchase a firearm for self-defense.

The name of the bill is the “Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self-defense of themselves and others.”

The bill has three sections: they are:

Section 1. Not later than January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.

Section 2. After January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.

Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm pursuant to §§ 22-14-15, 22-14-15.1, or 22-14-15.2.

Sounds pretty reasonable, right?

Well, when Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls), one of the sponsors of the bill, was asked about the true intent of H.B. 1237 he fessed up to its facetious nature but also underscored the larger political point the sponsors were making.

“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.

He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”

Critics of the bill panned it as a pointless political stunt and/or a waste of time.

Doug Mataconis questioned the merits of the criticism the bill was placing on Obamacare.

He wrote in Outside the Beltway, “there isn’t any reason why a state government couldn’t require gun ownership — although I happen to think it would be an ill-advised policy — and as Massachusetts shows us, it can also require people to purchase health insurance.”

“Whether the Federal Government can do that last one is the issue presently before more than one Court. This little bill doesn’t prove anything and just makes its advocates look silly.”

If these lawmakers want to look less silly, they should sponsor a real bill that subsidizes the purchase of all firearms. Give each gun owner or prospective gun owner government funds to purchase the gun of his/her choice.

**SagesStone**

Wow, that is pretty stupid. If they want people to have guns allow them to, don't force every idiot to have one...

**hotsauceman1**

Um, How do they guarantee the person who is getting the gun isn't planing another columbine. I Believe in gun ownership(with certain restriction) but forcing it it just wrgong.
Also im thinking, what of the poor people that don't have a way to properly store a gun? what if their kids get a hand on it.

**KingCracker**

n0t_u wrote:Wow, that is pretty stupid. If they want people to have guns allow them to, don't force every idiot to have one...

This is truly a first for KC, Im agreeing with a non American, on firearm law

hotsauceman1 wrote:Um, How do they guarantee the person who is getting the gun isn't planing another columbine. I Believe in gun ownership(with certain restriction) but forcing it it just wrgong.
Also im thinking, what of the poor people that don't have a way to properly store a gun? what if their kids get a hand on it.

Again, this is why Im thinking such a law is a bad idea. Some people, no matter how old, are just not responsible enough for a firearm, period. And like you said, what if they work at McDonalds and literally live paycheck to paycheck, how are they going to safely stow away the weapon? I dunno....it seems a bit insane in my book

**Ensis Ferrae**

I seem to remember a County somewhere in the States actually did pass a law like this.. The problem wasn't within the county, as all crimes dropped to near zero. The problem with enacting this sort of law came in the neighboring counties, where crimes sky-rocketed; It was presumed at the state level that it was because criminals saw "This County Packs Heat! Move On To The Next One!" signs on the way in, and ended up moving to "greener" pastures.

I think that this law is a bad idea, A because of how many people can legitimately afford a firearm and all requisite items for maintenance. The law does a "good" job of ensuring those who cannot own a gun in the first place can't. However, the issue of "whether a kid gets ahold of daddy's gun" to me, is not an issue. That is a parenting issue. If you have not/will not teach your own children the proper uses and handling of a firearm, then you shouldnt own one in the first place.

I think that, overall it is indeed just a political stunt, and if it did pass, the neighboring states would probably see a rise in crime as a result. Also, how would a law enforcement agency enforce such a law?

**daedalus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I seem to remember a County somewhere in the States actually did pass a law like this.. The problem wasn't within the county, as all crimes dropped to near zero. The problem with enacting this sort of law came in the neighboring counties, where crimes sky-rocketed; It was presumed at the state level that it was because criminals saw "This County Packs Heat! Move On To The Next One!" signs on the way in, and ended up moving to "greener" pastures.

If you think that's a bad thing, then we should remove locks from doors and force people to take out those little signs indicating an active security system present on the premises. Under certain conditions, I kind of like the idea. Reminds me of a step toward the Swiss military system, which would normally terrify me coming from a country as "ambitious" as ours, except you're not actually drafting people.

**Johnny-Crass**

Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it

**DocBach**

Johnny-Crass wrote:Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it

It's not really a tax on the poor because I see it as a way for SD to eliminate some of their law enforcement budget by having armed citizens (though if you look crime rates in SD are way lower than most of the country, anyways). Sort of like what happened here in CA; when Vallejo started to lay off the majority of its department, they actually advised citizens to arm themselves as there was going to be much less police in a city with already high rates of crime.

The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.

**Monster Rain**

I'm a pretty intense supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, but I'm not crazy about this.

Telling people that they have to buy something is the opposite of freedom, isn't it?

**daedalus**

Monster Rain wrote:
Telling people that they have to buy something is the opposite of freedom, isn't it?

Consumerism IS freedom, friend.

**George Spiggott**

Monster Rain wrote:Telling people that they have to buy something is the opposite of freedom, isn't it?

My first thought was that this is essentially a tax, except the recipient of the cash is the armaments industry.

I understand that at least an element of the 'right to bear arms' movement is essentially a lobby to keep the public purchasing product. If most of the manufacturers are US companies employing US citizens this is a good thing, in a way. Not such a good thing for the 'free market' but a little bit of communism never hurt anyone.

**SilverMK2**

Wow - what a strange idea.

I'd rather see bills that require all gun owners to regularly undergo training (and possibly re-evaluation as to their suitability for gun ownership).

Though I do get that this bill was supposed to "demonstrate" how "stupid" it is for people to be required to have health care.

**Jakka**

I think if they were serious about the idea, they should eliminate the requirement to have a concealed permit to carry, as well as make firearms purchases tax-deductible.

**DickBandit**

I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.

But hen again, this bill was made by a bunch of smart-asses. Haha, I like their humor.

**daedalus**

DickBandit wrote:I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.

I support the RIGHT to own a firearm, not the law forcing you to own one.

While I understand what you're saying, what religion is it a violation of to own a gun? What violation of your right to speech is owning a gun?

**DickBandit**

daedalus wrote:
DickBandit wrote:I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.

I support the RIGHT to own a firearm, not the law forcing you to own one.

While I understand what you're saying, what religion is it a violation of to own a gun? What violation of your right to speech is owning a gun?

The religion part I meant with the "forced to fund abortions" (my beliefs go strongly against abortions).

The reason why I say forced to own a weapon is against a person's freedom of speech is that if an individual is strictly against owning firearms and is forced to own one, that law forced them to go against their beliefs.

**Archaeo**

You have to look at this as also being South Dakota. This is not a knock on the state or this bill, but in truth the vast majority of people in the state probably already own some sort of firearm. The population in the state isn't overly large either so it probably wouldn't be that big a deal. They shouldn't MAKE people own a weapon if they don't want though.

**DickBandit**

It's all good because this bill was meant to point out the flaws of forcing people to have health care.

**KingCracker**

Can I ask where you got that from?

**DickBandit**

It's in the article you posted

“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.

He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”

See.

**Chowderhead**

DickBandit wrote:It's in the article you posted

“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.

He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”

See.

Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.

**hotsauceman1**

DocBach wrote:
Johnny-Crass wrote:Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it

It's not really a tax on the poor because I see it as a way for SD to eliminate some of their law enforcement budget by having armed citizens (though if you look crime rates in SD are way lower than most of the country, anyways). Sort of like what happened here in CA; when Vallejo started to lay off the majority of its department, they actually advised citizens to arm themselves as there was going to be much less police in a city with already high rates of crime.

The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.

You want an enitre states armed with m16s?

**DickBandit**

Chowderhead wrote:
DickBandit wrote:It's in the article you posted

“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.

He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”

See.

Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.

Meh, I don't have healthcare. Don't need it right now. I'm a broke-ass student at UTI. If I get in an accident or brake something I'll just use the SAM splint I... "acquired" *ahem* from the Army.

Besides when people don't pay the hospital, guess who eats the bill? The hospital.

Hmm... Healthcare and a Handgun, I think that will be my debut single for my metal band.

**SilverMK2**

Chowderhead wrote:Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.

For example one is useful, saves lives and benefits society and the other is a gun

**KingCracker**

Yea I read that, but didnt really read that if you get what Im saying. I was more paying attention to the legal part above it. Weather its a stunt or not, I think its a pretty stupid stunt, it COULD pass, then what? Im sure it wont, but personally like Ive said, Im not a fan of this idea at all

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.

For example one is useful, saves lives and benefits society and the other is a gun

Alright alright, keep on topic ya?

**DickBandit**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.

For example one is useful, saves lives and benefits society and the other is a gun

OH HO HO!! Well played, sir.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Yea I read that, but didnt really read that if you get what Im saying. I was more paying attention to the legal part above it. Weather its a stunt or not, I think its a pretty stupid stunt, it COULD pass, then what? Im sure it wont, but personally like Ive said, Im not a fan of this idea at all

Yeah, I feel the same way. I guess it was worth a try, worst thing they can say is "No", right?

**AustonT**

DocBach wrote:

The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.

There's some propels with that. The very last of the M1 rifles are going to be gone soon, the stock is so low CMP is now offering new builds from SA. IIRC the last foriegn held stock of leased rifles is in North Korea, and the current administration has been keeping them from beig returned. Last I heard they allowed the rifles but are blocking 10s of thousands of m1 carbines that are technically still owned by our government. It's an idiotic attempt to keep CMP from selling M1 carbine...you know assault weapons, in the same fashion the .gov will saw M14 recievers in half instead of demil-ing them to semi only and giving them to CMP. So I have my doubts any AR platforms will move from government stock to private ownership through any means.

**helgrenze**

Well seeing as handgun ownership is regulated by a Federal requirement.... Background check.... and

Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm...

I doubt that ALL residents will actually be allowed to purchase said firearm.
Also, the proposal says nothing about owning either a working weapon, nor the ammunition for such.

**Makarov**

n0t_u wrote:Wow, that is pretty stupid. If they want people to have guns allow them to, don't force every idiot to have one...

That.

<-----From an NRA, GOA member, and 870 owner (soon to be saiga owner)

**Ensis Ferrae**

I raised a question earlier on in the thread (well really it was a statement), but IF a law like this went through, then how does any Law Enforcement agency legitimately enforce such a law?

Would it be a sort of annual poll, or "you have to prove you own a firearm in order to go into this here voting booth" type thing?

Either way, it is basically impossible to enforce, without creating new laws to go alongside this one, and/or violate other rights that the people currently have.