Intriguing law proposed for South Dakota; mandates purchase of firearms

 Quoted verbatim, article from Argusleader.com in Sioux Falls, SD, via Drudge.

"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.

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.”

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."

---------------------------------

Intriguing approach to demonstrate that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.

I agree everyone should own a firearm.  Every person should invest in their own self defense.  Ultimately, each of us has a moral obligation to do so.

However, although I am a really strong believer in self defense, the 2nd Amendment, unlimited firearms ownership and safety training, etc., I am an equally strong believer that Federal and State authorities cannot infringe on individual Liberty by mandating anything.

Better that South Dakota should completely remove local gun ownership restrictions, and nullify the Federal firearms acts, than to propose a dog and pony show bill as an intellectual exercise.