South Dakota Legislation Would Require Gun Ownership

Send by email Printer-friendly version Share this

While it looks like the bill will not pass, five South Dakota lawmakers have started a state bill that would require gun ownership after turning 21. While the idea is provocative it appears that the state reps introduced the bill to highlight the federal health care reform passed last year. The Argus Leader has the full details.

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.

South Dakota is no stranger to controversial gun laws, early last month the state was sued by the ACLU over requiring U.S. citizenship to obtain a concealed weapons permit.


Chuck-n-Alaska's picture

Even if it does pass it

Even if it does pass it probably won't stand up in federal court. A federal court just ruled an individual cannot be forced to buy health insurance I don't see much difference. That said only a fool wouldn't have the means to protect himself and his family.

groovy mike's picture


A few towns have done this before, and the crime rate in each is EXTREMELY low.  I think its a great idea.  Why not make it a legal obligation as well as a moral obligation to defend your loved ones and prevent crime?

It really isn't so different than the famous Swiss policy that puts a full auto weapon in the home of every military aged citizen in teh country.  It is their civic obligation to defend their country.  I think we ought to have the same policy in every town!


numbnutz's picture

so am i reading this right?

so am i reading this right? are they saying there making it mandatory to own a gun after turning 21? I'm pro gun but this law just seens silly. i hope it doesnt pass if thats the case, people should be able to choose whether they want a firearm or not. these law makers are just wasting the states money trying to pass this thing. who voted them in?

Ca_Vermonster's picture

I posted this a couple of

I posted this a couple of days ago in the firearms forum.  If you take a close lok at it, and even the lawmaker mentions it, that it's a political stunt.

They are proposing it as sort of a mockery of the health care law, in that they believe it's unconstitutional for the governement to require, by law, that any citizen purchasse something (Health care)

Even the guys who are proposing it do not expect it to pass.

Still funny though.