A handful of South Dakota lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require every one of the state’s citizens over the age of 21 to own a firearm. But the legislation isn’t really intended to force South Dakota residents to take up arms. Instead, it’s meant to highlight the questions some have regarding the constitutionality of the mandatory coverage portion of the health care bill.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not.” Explained State Rep. Hal Wick, one of the bill’s five sponsors. “But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.”
From the bill:
[E]ach citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense…
[E]ach citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.
As reported earlier, a District Court judge in Florida deemed void the entirety of last year’s health care reform legislation after ruling that the mandatory coverage section of the law was both unconstitutional and inseparable from the rest of the bill.
What is your opinion of the analogy comparing mandatory gun ownership to mandatory insurance coverage?
Thanks to Harper for the tip!