The Liberal Gun Club Forum

"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."
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... d|mostview

GlockLobster wrote:"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."
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... d|mostview

Only problem I have with it is what about people who are struggling to buy food?

If the state mandates that everyone own a gun, then there should programs that offer financial assistance in the purchase of said gun for those who can prove they cannot afford it. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

Wurble wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:"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."
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... d|mostview

Only problem I have with it is what about people who are struggling to buy food?

If the state mandates that everyone own a gun, then there should programs that offer financial assistance in the purchase of said gun for those who can prove they cannot afford it. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

And yet requiring health insurance is bad.

Paladin wrote:

Wurble wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:"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."
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... d|mostview

Only problem I have with it is what about people who are struggling to buy food?

If the state mandates that everyone own a gun, then there should programs that offer financial assistance in the purchase of said gun for those who can prove they cannot afford it. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

And yet requiring health insurance is bad.

I have but one argument there: with guns there is at least competition; there is a very very large variety of brands and models to choose from. With health insurance, you're lucky if there are 2 or 3 viable insurance companies to choose from. Many folks have only 1.

And yet requiring health insurance is bad.[/quote]

I'm sure the same legislators are suing about that being unconstitutional.

Wurble wrote:


I have but one argument there: with guns there is at least competition; there is a very very large variety of brands and models to choose from. With health insurance, you're lucky if there are 2 or 3 viable insurance companies to choose from. Many folks have only 1.

True, which is why the health care reform originally proposed wanted to let you buy from any insurance company in any state. I am not sure if that part made it in the final bill though.

Well I guess I'm in the minority here, nobody else has brought this up but I think its as unconstitutional as barring gun ownership. Isn't SDAK the hanger state? Or is that NDAK?

Isn't this essentially a watered down version of the Militia Act on a state level?

Paladin wrote:

Wurble wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:"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."
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... d|mostview

Only problem I have with it is what about people who are struggling to buy food?

If the state mandates that everyone own a gun, then there should programs that offer financial assistance in the purchase of said gun for those who can prove they cannot afford it. Otherwise it's a poll tax.

And yet requiring health insurance is bad.

I had the same thought.

If you read the article the lawmakers that introduced the law admitted they did it knowing the law would fail. It's just political grandstanding.

Yes, their argument is that their gun law is just as constitutional as the health care law.

Either both are constitutional or none.

They think none is the correct answer.

MetalSlugIV wrote:If you read the article the lawmakers that introduced the law admitted they did it knowing the law would fail. It's just political grandstanding.

This is an old tactic sleazy politicians use to make themselves look good. Here in Texas, our two-faced govenor Perry made a big deal of opposing the federal government grants knowing all the while that the state legislator would override him and accept the money anyway. Texas got the money and Perry got to grandstand before the Tea Party crowd bragging about how he stood up to the big bad federal gov. It stinks!

I hate to say it, but hear me out. I agree with the repubes (Take note, you may never hear me say that phrase again ) to an extent. This mandatory insurance purchasing from private companies is very distasteful to me, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is ultimately deemed unconstitutional. What needs to be done is to strike the corporatist language from the law, and replace it with a simple single payer system like the rest of the civilized world uses. We sorely need to cut out the profiteering middle man, and make this system function efficiently and cost effectively. By the same token that I don't think that our government should have rewarded the banks and wallstreet for their unethical and fraudulent behavior, I also don't feel that we should reward the insurance industry for creating the unethical and possibly fraudulent (in the form of artificially driving the costs of healthcare preposterously high ) environment which we are now 'enjoying'.

Things tend to cost less when you aren't having to support an entire HUGE industry of purely profit driven middle men. Middle men who ultimately play absolutely no part in your care, unless they arbitrarily deny you of the services you've paid for for years. Fuck the insurance industry. In the ear. Sideways.

AmirMortal wrote:This mandatory insurance purchasing from private companies is very distasteful to me, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

Ok, I agree with your overall sentiment but I'd like to see a solid argument as to why this is unconstitutional. If I'm going to bark at it, I'd like to bark for the right reasons.

AmirMortal wrote:I hate to say it, but hear me out. I agree with the repubes (Take note, you may never hear me say that phrase again ) to an extent. This mandatory insurance purchasing from private companies is very distasteful to me, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is ultimately deemed unconstitutional. What needs to be done is to strike the corporatist language from the law, and replace it with a simple single payer system like the rest of the civilized world uses. We sorely need to cut out the profiteering middle man, and make this system function efficiently and cost effectively. By the same token that I don't think that our government should have rewarded the banks and wallstreet for their unethical and fraudulent behavior, I also don't feel that we should reward the insurance industry for creating the unethical and possibly fraudulent (in the form of artificially driving the costs of healthcare preposterously high ) environment which we are now 'enjoying'.

Things tend to cost less when you aren't having to support an entire HUGE industry of purely profit driven middle men. Middle men who ultimately play absolutely no part in your care, unless they arbitrarily deny you of the services you've paid for for years. Fuck the insurance industry. In the ear. Sideways.

I too agree with a lot of this..... but there is no way the republicans want the businesses out of it. They want the government out of it. This is a compromise between what you want and what the republicans want. When I say compromise I mean it is what the dems caves into so that people didn't point and scream 'socialist' at them.

lemur wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:This mandatory insurance purchasing from private companies is very distasteful to me, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

Ok, I agree with your overall sentiment but I'd like to see a solid argument as to why this is unconstitutional. If I'm going to bark at it, I'd like to bark for the right reasons.

This is where the republicans argument doesn't hold water. If it's so unconstitutional then why not, in the same breath, are they not wanting to fight against us having to buy auto insurance? Or any type of insurance for that matter? I too disagree with the forced buying of insurance. In my opinion it's just a big giveaway to the almighty insurance companies. In the end it's just a big payout to them. I'm also sick of the bullshit "gov't takeover" meme. The only possible way it would fall under that guideline would be if it was a single payer system. I'm sick of these dumbfuck tea baggers and their sheer stupidity.

whitey wrote:

lemur wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:This mandatory insurance purchasing from private companies is very distasteful to me, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

Ok, I agree with your overall sentiment but I'd like to see a solid argument as to why this is unconstitutional. If I'm going to bark at it, I'd like to bark for the right reasons.

This is where the republicans argument doesn't hold water. If it's so unconstitutional then why not, in the same breath, are they not wanting to fight against us having to buy auto insurance? Or any type of insurance for that matter? I too disagree with the forced buying of insurance. In my opinion it's just a big giveaway to the almighty insurance companies. In the end it's just a big payout to them. I'm also sick of the bullshit "gov't takeover" meme. The only possible way it would fall under that guideline would be if it was a single payer system. I'm sick of these dumbfuck tea baggers and their sheer stupidity.

The argument that I keep seeing them use is simply that the States requiring insurance for one thingh or another is OK, but that the Federal gov simply doesn't have the right to make that demand. There is no Federal mandate to purchase car insurance, that is left to the states. So for them it's mostly an anti-federalist thing. Ultimately, if you are not the owner of a car in most places you are not required to buy insurance, verses this mandate which says EVERYONE must have their own minimum insurance even if you'll in theory never use it.

This is where we differ. I have no problem with healthcare at the federal level; my problem is with the corporate semi-monoploly-they get filthy rich no matter what happens. The recent mandate that these companies must use something like 85% of premiums for healthcare will be a joke to them. They will end up seeing this as a corporate right to collect no less than 15% profit instead, mark my words.

whitey wrote: This is where the republicans argument doesn't hold water. If it's so unconstitutional then why not, in the same breath, are they not wanting to fight against us having to buy auto insurance?

Because owning a car is a choice. Being alive is not.

You can avoid having to buy car insurance several ways. The easiest is to not own a car. The other is to own a car but never drive it on public roads. You don't need insurance to drive a car on private roads.

Forcing people to buy something is a tax. However unlike legal taxes, it is a tax that goes to a private entity. That's not legal. They are making it mandatory for every single living citizen. Every one. That's not legal unless it is the government providing the service. The government is not providing the service/product and thus it is illegal.


I think there are only 2 possible solutions to our healthcare situation. The most effective, IMO is to offer a single payer government run option but allow people to have private insurance supplement the government care. Like France.

Another possible way out is to create Federal Level insurance laws and create a law that supersedes all state insurance laws. This could very legitimately be supported by interstate commerce clause because each insurance company would be engaging in interstate commerce and thus their regulation would come under Federal jurisdiction and not state.

Simply allowing people to buy insurance from another state without Federal level regulations would simply result in a total deregulation of the industry. We saw it happen before with Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. The Supreme Court ruled that state usury laws could not be applied to multi-state banks. The ruling basically said that a bank residing in one state and operating in another could pick and chose which state's laws applied. As a result of that decision, Citibank left New York and moved to South Dakota. Citibank then lobbied SD to remove their usury rate caps successfully. This in turn created a chain reaction whereby each state competed to remove usury caps to get banks to move there. The end result was the total dismantling of usury laws in the United States.

If you allow interstate purchasing of health insurance without setting up Federal regulations all insurance companies must abide by, several state legislatures will change their laws to effectively remove nearly any and all health insurance regulation. All health insurance companies would go to those states and thus any and all health insurance regulation would be completely dismantled in the USA within 2-3 years.

Interstate purchasing of health insurance must coincide with Federal level regulations which SUPERSEDE all state regulations.

I've been sitting on the following comment, but in light of Wurble's last posting I feel compelled to release it.

I've read the judge's decision in VA. Someone put it up here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45218191/US-D ... urt-Ruling

The reason proposed as to the unconstitutionality of the health care plan is that the US govt is going beyond the bounds of the Commerce Clause. The analysis is as follows. In previous decisions of the Commerce Clause, the actions which were found to be within the scope of the Clause were those which people could engage in voluntarily. The examples given are cases where people were growing pot. Since they decided to grow pot, they voluntarily engaged in "economic activity", commerce. Once they voluntarily engage in the activity, then they become subject to federal regulation. In the case of the health care plan, people are subject to regulation ("you must buy insurance") even if people are not engaging in any commerce. The decision not to buy health care is not an "economic activity." (Just in the same way that the decision not to grow pot is not an "economic activity.")

The defense (i.e. the US govt) gives examples where the government can punish people for not acting but the judge notes that these examples are powers provided by other clauses of the constitution, not the Commerce Clause. E.g. people who do not pay taxes are fined but that's constitutionally okay because there is a constitutional clause which gives the government such power. (That is, taxation does not depend on the Commerce Clause.)

The decision also contains a discussion of whether or not the penalty for not getting insurance is a tax. If it were, then it would fall under the US govt power of taxation and the whole Commerce Clause reasoning would be moot. The judge examined "congressional intent" and found that when the bill was being debated, the penalty was specifically framed as something else than a tax. So the intent of congress was not taxation. (Yeah, they shot themselves in the foot real well trying to avoid the dreaded "tax" word.)

As much as I want to see universal health care, the judge's reasoning seems to me reasonable. IANAL and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar so maybe there's some crucial thing I'm missing.

That's the only reasoning I've had a chance to look at. I don't think the Commerce Clause argument would have any impact on what the SD state legislature does though. So I'm not sure how they think their gun ownership requirement is going to help them make their point.

If the judge's reasoning is legally sound then I think any proposal which relies on the Commerce Clause to force people to get insurance is bound to fail. There may be no way out of the constitutional challenge short of making the health care system a single-payer system. Then it will be financed through taxes.

Alright so I'm reading the judgment in Florida.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... 53_vin.pdf

The judge found that:

- The health care bill does not violate the Spending Clause of the constitution. I did not read the whole reasoning there.

- The health care bill does violate the Commerce Clause. The reasoning is the same as in VA but the judge also refutes other points of the defense, which I'm not going to describe here.

- The health care bill is not an application of the Necessary and Proper Clause because it is not "modest" and "narrow in scope".

- The bill is not severable. If one part of the bill is unconstitutional, the whole bills is unconstitutional.

(Edit: Hmm... "violate" is not the right word.)