SD bill to require all over 21 to purchase a gun

CensoredRed said:
February 1, 2011 1:27 PM


Bill Introduced in South Dakota Would Require All Citizens to Buy a Gun

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030246-503544.html


Yes, this is true. But, they're doing in hopes of drawing attention to government forcing people to buy insurance. They'd poop all over themselves if it passed. LOL! :clap:
Click to expand...

WOW~ Quite a creative way to make a point.

Question: Can states pass individual mandates in areas/ways that the Feds cannot?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Question: Can states pass individual mandates in areas/ways that the Feds cannot?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

While the 14th Amendment guarantees our Constitutional rights As enumerated in the B.O.R. cannot be violated by any level of government, the limits placed on powers of government are focused on the federal government. In fact, the 10th Amendment proclaims that powers NOT enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or the people respectively. Since mandating the purchase of an item or service cannot possibly be a right of the people, then it would be a power reserved to the states. That is why states can get away with mandating liability insurance on automobiles, among other things. The only way to fight a state government mandate is if you have an argument that the mandated purchase violates our Constitutional protections in some manner.

IMO, to do that, you'd probably have to use the 9th Amendment, and get the courts to agree that the right against being forced to make purchases against your own judgment is a non-enumerated right.
 
Last edited:
That being said, if the insurance mandate portion of Obamacare goes down due to Constitutional issues, I foresee the federal government using their age-old method of fiscal blackmail against the states to get the states to pass mandated purchase of health insurance.
 
Good Luck said:
Absolutely.

While the 14th Amendment guarantees our Constitutional rights As enumerated in the B.O.R. cannot be violated by any level of government, the limits placed on powers of government are focused on the federal government. In fact, the 10th Amendment proclaims that powers NOT enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or the people respectively. Since mandating the purchase of an item or service cannot possibly be a right of the people, then it would be a power reserved to the states. That is why states can get away with mandating liability insurance on automobiles, among other things. The only way to fight a state government mandate is if you have an argument that the mandated purchase violates our Constitutional protections in some manner.

IMO, to do that, you'd probably have to use the 9th Amendment, and get the courts to agree that the right against being forced to make purchases against your own judgment is a non-enumerated right.
Click to expand...


Oh. Thanks.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not likely.....whether a state required it or the feds, it would still be unconstitutional.....
Click to expand...
What part of the Constitution do you believe a STATE government mandate would violate? And, if so, why have the state mandates requiring automobile liability insurance not been challenged?
 
Good Luck said:
What part of the Constitution do you believe a STATE government mandate would violate? And, if so, why have the state mandates requiring automobile liability insurance not been challenged?
Click to expand...

I haven't read it yet but I understand a recent court decision held that the federal government cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance......would it not logically follow the government also cannot mandate the purchase of guns?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I haven't read it yet but I understand a recent court decision held that the federal government cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance......would it not logically follow the government also cannot mandate the purchase of guns?......
Click to expand...
The FEDERAL government is not considering a bill to mandate the purchase of a firearm. The STATE government of South Dakota is.
 
Good Luck said:
What part of the Constitution do you believe a STATE government mandate would violate? And, if so, why have the state mandates requiring automobile liability insurance not been challenged?
Click to expand...

Isn't the difference that you are not forced to drive, but if you choose to do so that you must aquire insurance? In addition the State maintains; protects; and regulates the public roadways we use therefore giving them the right to require insurance?
 
There have already been municipalities that required all residents to have a gun and possess ammunition. There were allowances for those who had religious reasons for not wanting a gun.

Kennesaw GA saw a sharp drop in crime when that was in effect. Then the yuppies moved out there and ...well......
 
Good Luck said:
What part of the Constitution do you believe a STATE government mandate would violate? And, if so, why have the state mandates requiring automobile liability insurance not been challenged?
Click to expand...
I believe it depends on the particular State Constitution.
 
Good Luck said:
The FEDERAL government is not considering a bill to mandate the purchase of a firearm. The STATE government of South Dakota is.
Click to expand...

are you under some misconception that the federal Constitution does not limit things that states may do?.....

the majority of cases in which the SCOTUS has ruled involve laws that states have passed which violated our constitutional rights......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you under some misconception that the federal Constitution does not limit things that states may do?.....

the majority of cases in which the SCOTUS has ruled involve laws that states have passed which violated our constitutional rights......
Click to expand...
Like I asked before, name the Constitutional right which is violated. It is easy to challenge the federal government imposing mandates (which is the case you referenced) because federal power is limited to those powers enumerated. Mandating the purchase of any goods or services is not an enumerated power, and is therefore unconstitutional at the FEDERAL level. OTOH, the 10th Amendment says that those powers not reserved to the feds, and not forbidden to the states, is reserved to the states. Therefore, mandating the purchase of goods or services IS a power of the states, since it is neither enumerated to the feds nor forbidden the states.

UNLESS, of course, there is a violation of enumerated rights, or non-enumerated rights, assuming SCOTUS can be convinced that protection against such mandates is a non-enumerated right protected under the 9th Amendment.

As such, which right are you claiming is violated by state government mandating the purchase of specific goods or services?
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
I believe it depends on the particular State Constitution.
Click to expand...
The discussion is on the U.S. Constitution, and whether the same limits the courts are using to declare federal mandates unconstitutional also applies to the states. It has nothing to do with the various state constitutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top