South Dakota GOP Mandates Gun Ownership as a Joke, But leaves Door Open for the Individual Mandate

Earlier this week, the South Dakota State Legislature introduced House Bill 1237. HB 1237 would mandate all South Dakotans to purchase a firearm of their liking for  self defense at the beginning of 2012. The only exclusions to gun ownership would be criminals that are not allowed to have them by law. This story broke in the South Dakota's Argus Leader and in local liberal blog The Madville Times on Monday. The national websites at Talking Points Memo and Politico picked up the story on Tuesday. All of the comments from the local sites and national sites show people upset with this law. When asked by the Argus Leader, State Representative Hal Wicks sponsor of the bill stated, "we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance." Later on Wicks said that this bill was a joke, which did not sit well with many South Dakotans who are worrying about a 107 million dollar deficit shortfall. This joke by these state legislators brings and interesting discussion about the Individual Mandate.

The point of their failed exercise was to prove that the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, but they forgot that state governments are different than the Federal Government. The first item that they are not aware of is that state governments are allowed to have Individual Mandates. An example of this is automobile insurance, which every state requires of automobile owners to have the insurance or these owners have to pay a fine. It is mandated by the state that automobile owners are required to have the insurance. This gun law like the automobile insurance law is created by the state regulated by the state.  Therefore there is no correlation between South Dakota's Gun law and the National Healthcare Law. This attempt by these Legislators failed miserably.

Since these legislators were looking to make an example of how in their view that the Individual Mandate was Unconstitutional, lets give them another example how the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and employed by our Founding Fathers. One example is the Militia Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington on May 8, 1792.  In the organization of the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792 required white males between 18 and 45 to join a militia and be able to supply themselves with the necessary equipment. As seen here in section one:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack...

As section one reads,"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."  The only people that were considered citizens at this time were white landed males over the age of eighteen, which this law mandated their military service. This is one example, but playing devils advocate we can argue that this does not require people to buy things. Now if you read further into the act, you can find where the government mandates its citizens to purchase items. As it mandates their militiamen to supply their own supplies for training. This can be seen again in section one:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.

This is an mandate by the United States Government for its citizens at the time were required to purchase items for military service. Clearly the United States Government created an Individual Mandate to its citizens and required them to purchase the necessary means for militia service.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed with the Militia Act of 1903, because of the need to update standards and to add Federal funding to state militias. Not to argue that the requirement of militiamen to supply their own equipment was Unconstitutional. No one had challenged the Militia Act of 1792 in the 111 years of existence. It had been amended, but no one challenged the Constitutionality of the requirement for militiamen to obtain their own supplies for military service. Overall, this Individual Mandate was unchallenged and accepted. 

The Individual Mandate will be argued until the Supreme Court makes their ruling. Both sides will try to make their own points in the matter.  As the South Dakota Legislators tried to make a point, and my blog post is an attempt to counter their argument. I have tried to provide accurate evidence that back up my points with respectable links. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon.