It would be inherently more legal than the health insurance mandate in Obamacare, since, as far as I can tell by reading the SD Constitution, there is nothing that would prohibit the law (specifically in the Legislative powers)
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.â€
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.
Of course, the five are not really serious. They are, in fact, making a point
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.
Bingo
At the heart of the states’ lawsuit is the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” Judge Vinson writes.
South Dakota would be on a more legal ground if they required all citizens to purchase health insurance: there is nothing to ban that in their Constitution. The US Constitution, however, doesn’t provide any authority to force every US citizen to purchase health insurance.
When I first read this I thought of Kennesaw, GA which has a city ordinance which states:
34-21 (a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(Source: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12813&stateId=10&stateName=Georgia )
But the subsequent section reads:
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
In other words, you don’t have to buy a gun as the head of a household if you do not want to.
When this law was first passed, I seem to remember a lawsuit filed by someone on the basis of being forced to buy something. The lawsuit (in my memory) was dismissed when Kennesaw put in the word “beliefs” in subsection “b” of the ordinance.
Even then it was recognized that inactivity is not within the realm of the Commerce Clause.
Not purchase…own.
Actually that’s the secound ammendment “…a well regulated militia…”. The militia was usually all males between 16 to 60 and were required to posses a firearm of certain requirements with adequate gunpowder, bullets and spare flints. The term militia would expand as required such as seiges when girls and all men were “drafted”.
Just as unconstitutional, but with better creds. The 2nd amendment IS a part of the document, after all, which is more than you can say for “Universal Health Care” or whatever they’re calling it this week.
I think people are missing my point.
The Kennesaw ordinance requires heads of households to have a firearm. The very next section gives the people a way out of it.
That is not the case with Obamacare.
In other words, even the little town Kennesaw Georgia knows that you cannot compel people to buy something and you cannot penalize inactivity in commerce.
The President and those supporting this bill have yet to realize that.