Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Charles_Main]

The necessary and proper clause is not a grant of power to do whatever you want.

That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.

2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.

Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights, but it sure as hell guarantee them to you by saying the Government can not take them away from you.

 

[Charles_Main]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that.

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

And all of those are conditional mandates not blanket mandates. So your point is still not valid.

So based on the FACT that the HC mandate is not a blanket mandate due to the fact that if you have insurance you are not required to buy then your argument is baseless and nothing but spin.
The HC mandate is conditional and is not a blanket mandate.
Thanks for the argument.

What conditions are you referring to? That if you already have insurance you do not have to buy Insurance?

Are you seriously going there?

LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.

Correct. That fact that it doesnt address anything I said does.

This statement is demonstrably incorrect, in historical, legal and constitutional terms.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.

Why do you continue to bring up warrants when that doesn't address anything the other poster said??

It does, directly Her argument that the 2nd protects a collective right is based on the term "right of the people", with "people" denoting a collective rather than an individual.
If that argument is valid, then it applies wherever the term is used; necessarily, then, the rights protected by the 4th Amendment is collective as well.

This, you wll note, has not been effectively addressed.

persons is a term that describes many individuals and their indivudual rights
people is a collective group

Then...
If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So....?
Even if you are right in that persons, individually, have the right to be secure in ther person, that protection does not apply, individually, to their papers and effect - so, you could argue that an arrest warrant is necessary, but not a search warrant.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And, of course, all --opinion-- to the contrary is moot as the SCotUS has directly addressed the people/persons issue in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And then in DC v Heller

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And, of course, the direct statement that the 2nd protects am individual right

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.

 

[westwall]

Which supports my point of view..rather nicely.

Thanks.

Actually not true but nice try. They were referring to the militia (which is made up of the body of the people, in other words the citizens) and more importantly the decision specifies that hunting weapons AREN'T protected...military weapons are. Make's all those anti assault wepons null and void due to case law alone.

The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.

If that is so why was it even written into the Bill Of Rights which expressly deal with INDIVIDUAL rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

Again:
If you support the governent having the constitutional authority to enact The Obama's HC mandate, then you can have no argument against the gun mandate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.

2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.

Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights,

So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right. Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.

 

[rdean]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that.

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce. In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes. "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious. How do right wingers believe this service is paid for? Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".

 

[Mini 14]

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce.

This was completely untrue (did you make it up?), so I didn't read the rest.

 

[manifold]

Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.

This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

The bill is therefore unconstitutional.

Seriously, it blows me away that many of you don't understand this.

 

[bucs90]

Haha, this is great.

Well, if we can mandate that everyone gets health insurance, can't we also mandate that they get self-defense insurance?

I mean really, stop waiting on the gubermint to protect you. Get a gun and do it yourself.

 

[gekaap]

Wrong. The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause. They get what's left over.

What? The Supremacy clause asserts that federal government is supreme to state governments, and that state judiciaries must uphold federal laws even if states have laws that are counter the federal laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[bucs90]

BTW, I would 100% oppose this law.

There is a reason that cops are heros. Some people hate guns. They hate the idea that they may be in danger and have to fight for their life. Some people dont want to even think of that. And thats why America is great. A small, 18 year old girl who is alone at work late at night shouldn't have to worry about her own life against an armed suspect. Thats why there is a cop out there willing to take that guy on, on her behalf, risking his own life.

I've got 2 early 20-something nieces. Both are girly-girl types and hate guns. Thank God cops are out there so they don't have to learn how to use one.

So yeah, thanks to all you cops and soldiers who enable us to have a nation where 99% of people don't need to know how to use a gun. You guys make it possible.

 

[Sallow]

Actually not true but nice try. They were referring to the militia (which is made up of the body of the people, in other words the citizens) and more importantly the decision specifies that hunting weapons AREN'T protected...military weapons are. Make's all those anti assault wepons null and void due to case law alone.

The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.

If that is so why was it even written into the Bill Of Rights which expressly deal with INDIVIDUAL rights?

Where does it say that?

 

[gekaap]

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

This is a very useful piece of information. The fact that the US Supreme Court even heard the case indicates that the case involved an issue under the federal constitution. If the case did not raise a question about the legality of the law under the federal constitution, then the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the case.

 

[Sallow]

The Federal Government is already 'forcing' you to buy guns. What do you think our troops are using? Who do you think paid for them?

What's really sad about this is that I am reasonably sure that you really do need to be told the difference.

It's exactly correct.

 

[Avatar4321]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

It's got nothing to do with morality. It's the law.

There is nothing in the law that allows the Federal Government to force people to purchase health care.

There is nothing in the law that prevents State government from mandating that people own firearms.

 

[Avatar4321]

Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.

This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

The bill is therefore unconstitutional.

Seriously, it blows me away that many of you don't understand this.

No. It forces people to own guns. It does not force them to use it.

Not to mention that there has been precedent mentioned that you have ignored.

 

[manifold]

No. It forces people to own guns. It does not force them to use it.

It forces people to keep arms. This notion you keep spouting about using them is silly and beneath you, or so I would have thought.

Not to mention that there has been precedent mentioned that you have ignored.

The alleged 'precedent' is an ordinance for which there is no penalty for non-compliance. Go ahead and look it up if you don't believe me. But to your point, if anyone is SD could declare themselves exempt from this law (as they can in Kennesaw GA), then yes, as a toothless ordinance I will concede it would not be unconstitutional. However, the instant they actually penalize someone for not owning a gun, they have violated the 2nd Amendment.

 

[westwall]

The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.

If that is so why was it even written into the Bill Of Rights which expressly deal with INDIVIDUAL rights?

Where does it say that?

My gosh! Have you ever read it?

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


The Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

etc. etc. etc. Or are you claiming that the governement has the right to a trial by jury when it trys to take someting from someone? Or when the Ammendment refers to HIM it actually means the government???

To use your own words, dude, you need to catch up and get a clue. You've made yourself look like a complete moron with this issue.