January 09, 2013
   « All GOP senators now on board for Obamacare repeal | Blog Home Page | What's the difference, Mr. President? »
Email Friend | Print Article | | Share Share

February 2, 2011

S.D. lawmakers hit the bull's eye with firearm mandate

Phil Boehmke
While Obamacare’s forced insurance provision was being shot down by a federal judge in Florida, five legislators in South Dakota were taking aim at the absurdity of the health insurance mandate by introducing a bill that is bound to drive the left over the edge.

According to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:
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.”
What would Mr. Obama or Attorney General Holder have to say about this bill if it was passed and signed into law? What is going on out there in South Dakota? At Mount Rushmore, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt must surely be grinning from ear to ear. The four great presidents were all proponents and defenders of our Constitution and unlike Mr. Obama they all had a sense of irony, something their share with the bill’s sponsor.
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 firearm mandate also takes dead aim at the left’s call for “civility,” yet another reason to make our Mount Rushmore heroes smile.

Thomas Lifson adds: States have far more power to regulate citizens than does the federal government, as clearly explained here by Selwyn Duke: South Dakota's Proposed Gun Ownership Mandate and Constitutional Ignorance.

South Dakota's law is silly.

Posted at 12:23 AM | Email | | | Share Share