Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun (GOP ruse against Health Reform)

[onehandle]

Source: Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

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.

snip...

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.

Read more: http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun?odyssey=mod%7Cmostview

[Statistical]

1. Congress shouldn't how the power to mandate private purchases.

Honestly I think this is a good example.

Does anyone see the problem of corporate control of Congress and Congress having the power to mandate consumers I mean citizens buy products from corporations?

[emulatorloo]

4. They don't really want to pass this bill, it is just dumbass GOPers

trying to make a point. And not doing well with it because Guns are not analogous to health insurance.

[Statistical]

8. It doesn't matter if they are analogous.

The argument the federal government made is the commerce clause gives them the authority to mandate purchases.

If they can mandate health insurance they can mandate literally everything including guns.

[No Elephants]

23. Does S.D.'s Constitution have anything comparable to the commerce clause, though.

IMO, federal mandates to buy from private vendors violate the Due Process Clause and possibly the same "penumbras" and "emanations" the Court cited in Roe v. Wade. If Bush had done this with drugs, instead of putting them under Medicare, Dems everywhere would have been up in arms. However, apparently, anything goes if Dems or your favorite Dem(s), or a majority of Dems back it. That's unprincipled.

However, this S.D. law seems to have even less grounding in law than the hcr mandates.


Constitutional Justifications of Mandates.

(Preamble) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(bolded clause is the one usually cited as the ONLY Constitutional basis for using the spending power for federal support of welfare programs, like food stamps. IMO, though, the spending power stands on its own.)

(Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8) "3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"



I do not see mandating an individual to buy insurance as fitting under the Commerce Clause, but there is a Depression Era SCOTUS case saying feds can regulate your back yard veggie garden. (IMO, that was a horrible decision.)



Constitutional Provisions Prohibiting Mandates

Amendment 5 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Also, ponder this: if the feds atxing individuals to support things like the U.S. army, WH and Congress was seen as requiring an amendment to the Constitution, why in hell wouldn't mandating individuals to buy from private vendors?


mendment 16 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Unvanguard]

54. None of those arguments hold water.

As far as the Commerce Clause argument, given the ease of modern transportation and trade, the courts have recognized broad Congressional power to regulate economic activity. Since Congress has the power to regulate the insurance market, it has the power to mandate purchase of insurance to make its regulations work, under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Even the arguments challenging the mandate don't really call into doubt this basic logic. They just make up out of whole cloth a new limit on federal power, one that has nothing to do with the federalism limits they are supposedly expounding--that Congress can regulate only "activity", not "inactivity." But there is no basis for that whatsoever, even if we accepted that choosing non-insurance means to pay for health care is not an activity, which we shouldn't.

As far as the Fifth Amendment argument, the mandate does not impair any fundamental liberty interest, and mandating purchase is not the same thing as taking private property (any more than mandating taxation is.)

The Ninth Amendment has not had much use as a substantive source for rights, and rightly so.

The Tenth Amendment only applies if in fact there is no enumerated federal power that can support the mandate. At least under present Supreme Court precedent, which is wholly justified by modern economic realities, there pretty clearly is.

As for your tax question, the short answer is that (a) the mandate is defensible even without the tax argument (see above) and (b) the Sixteenth Amendment was only necessary to excuse the income tax for the requirements laid upon direct taxes, which the mandate (because it only penalizes people who don't have health insurance) is not.

[lunasun]

20. they love to waste tax $$$ dont they?

[24601]

50. Federal & State Powers aren't analogous - in fact they are

opposite. Per the 10th Amendment - the feds have only those powers delegated expressly by the Constitution. The States have powers for almost everything else that isn't delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states.

Commenting on the US Constitution - no idea what the state Constitution requires or prohibits.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Why wouldn't it be legal?

I would just counter by laying off all of the law enforcement officials since they aren't needed for ordinary defense of the public.

[Axle_techie]

15. BUT, BUT...

who will keep all them there dangerous stoners at bay?

[No Elephants]

24. Individual rights are why. Please see Reply 23.

[LAGC]

3. Better be careful, they might just find such a mandate Constitutional.

I know at least one town in Georgia passed a city ordinance that said that every household must have a gun, although I think it was more symbolic than anything else...

[emulatorloo]

5. GOPer fail n/t

[BadgerKid]

6. Might as well make formal education optional.

Some TP/RWers seem to have already embraced that notion for themselves (ZING!).

[Cant trust em]

7. I have a very effective watchdog. I'm perfectly safe.

See how fierce he is?

[onehandle]

9. You really should have included a warning indicating how scary he is.

I'm headed to bed and will have nightmares about that killer.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. What are the round things hanging from his collar?

Ninja throwing disks? Those should be regulated!

:hi:

[beevul]

What a sweet looking dog!

So cute!!

[beevul]

37. Dupe. N/T

[rasputin1952]

43. Oh man...I'm a canine person...

give you dog a hug!

:D

[AlbertCat]

10. "Sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

So, if you live in a safe neighborhood, a water pistol would be sufficient.


This is yet another example of contempt for government by the Conservative people in government.

Very strange. Why are they there if they hate government so much?

BTW, gun ownership is not essential, like health care, a service that EVERYONE will need at some time. There are not any runaway costs that hurt the economy associated with gun ownership. It is a stupid, superficial, juvenile stunt.... not governing. Repugs simply cannot govern. They are too immature.

[No Elephants]

26. Health care is very different from health insurance.

Hcr mandates buying health insurance from private vendors. Insurance is NOT a necessity.

ARGUABLY, health CARE is a necessity. However, hcr does NOT mandate health CARE. We are still, praise God, legally able to refuse treatment, if that is our wish.

[FarLeftFist]

11. NEWSFLASH: Everyone in SD over 21 DOES have a firearm!

But much less have health insurance.

[Skittles]

12. I don't like the health care bill, but this "analogy" is ridiculous

a better analogy would be forcing all gun owners to carry insurance should they be involved in a gun "incident"

[MisterP]

18. and if the insurance could eat 33% of their incomes nt

[Skittles]

27. MISTERP NAILS IT

yes INDEED

[Atypical Liberal]

32. In fact it would be insanely cheap.

You can buy such insurance today, and it is insanely cheap. You know why? People who go to the trouble to do such legal things are highly unlikely to be involved in crime.

[uncle ray]

34. it would be for most.

some would, of course, be unable to be insured at any price.

[w4rma]

13. Yup, Logical. Everyone needs protection, just like everyone needs health care. (nt)

[bluestateguy]

14. Many towns have tried this in the past

As I recall the few towns that had such laws simply did not enforce them.

[Goldom]

16. Congressional Republicans:

Taking a page from the Internet Troll handbook. Maybe when they're done with that strawman, they can try out the "if you don't like my ideas you just can't understand them" argument.

[verges]

17. 2nd Militia Act of 1792

"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.<3> Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

[saras]

21. Operative portion of post: 1792

Of course, "stagecoach driver" is also quite important, as is "powder horn".

Oh, and can't forget "white male".

[No Elephants]

29. What point about this S.D. STATE law do you make when you post a REPEALED U.S. law

about drafting men for defense of U.S., enacted under authority of many provisions of the federal constitution empowering the feds to raise armies to provide for the defense of the nation?

And please see Reply 23.

[The Second Stone]

19. States probably do have the power to require people to own

and maintain firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

[No Elephants]

30. States probably do NOT have the power to require all their residents to own

and maintain firearms.

Please see Reply 23.

[truthisfreedom]

22. What about insane people? Felons?

[Toon Me Out]

51. yeh

crazy teabaggers forced to buy additional guns! It's win/win for Rethugs.

[Liberty Belle]

25. Idiotic comparison.

Guns don't protect public safety, they compromise it.

Mandating healthcare, by contrast, leads to a healthier populace and lower healthcare costs.

While I don't support forcing people to buy healthcare especially if they can't afford it (and it may be unconstitutional) there are certainly more compelling arguments for requiring healthcare insurance than requiring weapons that can kill people, increase crime, drive up healthcare costs, and endanger the populace.

[No Elephants]

31. Please see Replies 26 and 23.

"Mandating healthcare, by contrast, leads to a healthier populace and lower healthcare costs."

Hcr does not mandate health care (or cap what insurers, health care providers or drug companies can charge), though, so hcr mandates lead only to making health insurers happier as insured Boomers get older and therefore likelier to cost health insurers more money before aging into Medicare.

Requiring young, healthy folk to pay almost unlimited sums for insurance put a smile back on their actuarily worried faces.

[Spoonman]

48. FAIL

Guns don't protect public safety, they compromise it.

Please provide us with the concrete data/research that substantiates your assertion.

[TatonkaJames]

28. Every parents dream....

Their child turning 21, able to buy booze and a gun and parrrrrrrtttttteeeeee !
Do these people stop to think one minute about their actions ?

[No Elephants]

33. Public option would have averted all Const. issues, but we've now lost the House,

(and narrowed our Senate majority, so even reconciliation (50 Senators + Biden) is no longer an option.

(Dave, we failed you on affordable health care over and over. R.I.., beautiful soul.)

[pam4water]

36. Please be an early April fools joke!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

38. Is there a public option?

If you can't afford a gun, will the state make obsolete police guns available for free or for a low price?

:hi:

(or if not, the feds have a public option) http://www.thecmp.org/

[newfie11]

39. LOL hell West River SD has more cows than people anyway lol

[tomm2thumbs]

40. points for cleverness - and a cheer for single payer to boot

could be they'll end up getting single payer to look like the best way - or at least medicare for all - keep it up ya GOP'ers... you just may make it happen for us!

[spicegal]

41. Oh, I get it. They're trying to make a point by comparing apples to oranges.

There are some huge differences, as if that's not obvious. Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives. Everyone gets sick. People have accidents. And generally, most people somewhere in the 50's having chronic health problems that require various levels of medical treatment. The mandate is to protect responsible citizens from the irresponsible, those that believe they won't get sick, and if they do, the rest of us will pay for it.

[spicegal]

42. Actually, I think anyone who purchases a gun should also

be mandated to purchase insurance to go along with that gun, considering all the death and destruction caused by firearms in this country.

[Nitram]

44. Another bill

To be followed by a bill requiring all citizens to weat a bulletproof vest.

[Thor_MN]

45. Wasn't mandated purchase a GOP idea in the first place?

I'm fairly ceryain it was added to appease the corporatist rethugs.

[Sabriel]

46. It's a great idea: they can use it to shoot themselves when they're terminal

No health care? Terminally ill? Can't afford your payments? Use your mandated gun to Kevorkian yourself!

[cmxterra]

47. Apples to Oranges?

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

It is not about gun. It is about the .gov telling you what you have to buy. It is not their place to make that mandate on ANYTHING.

[caseymoz]

49. I think it's a great idea.

I'll buy mine and find a criminal to give it to. Just to prove that, if everyone has guns, then the criminals will have the most guns.

Seriously, though, it is a great idea. If they can tax you, they can do this, although citizens have to stop them from anything . . . absurd.

Though I think maybe that power is vested not in State legislatures but only in Congress, due to the Necessary and Proper clause in the US Constitution, where theoretically Congress has this power.

[ProSense]

52. Jack Balkin offers

constitutional background

[Unvanguard]

53. I don't think that law is unconstitutional at all.

And since the argument against the mandate's constitutionality has to do with a federalism provision--i.e., it has nothing to do with what states can do, as opposed to the federal government--it has no bearing on South Dakota being able or not able to mandate the purchase of firearms.

Do these people even bother understanding constitutional law before pontificating cluelessly about it?

:eyes:

[dm1333]

55. Wow! Just wow!

"Repugs simply cannot govern. They are too immature."

Anyone see the humor in this statement?