14 Years Ago Today, The Giants and Jets Faced Off...and Put One Team...
Four Years Ago, Some Patriot Dropped an Epic Line on a Call With...
DK Metcalf Just Lost a Lot of Money for Punching a Detroit Lion's...
Merry Christmas, Over a Million More Files Potentially Related to the Epstein Case...
Supreme Court Ruled on Trump's Use of National Guard In This Blue State
Bari Weiss Is Everything Today’s Journalists Hate
Another Left-Wing Judge Just Decided He's Got More Authority Than President Trump
Despite No Evidence, This USAID Cuts Narrative Has Taken Hold
'The President Can't Do Everything:' Sen. Kennedy Calls on Senate to Use Reconciliation
Popular Neo-Nazi to Campaign Against Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio Gubernatorial Race
Stephen Miller Blasts CBS for Sympathizing With Criminal Illegal Immigrants
Federal Judge Blocks California Policy Forcing Schools to Hide Gender Transitions From Par...
98 Minnesota Mayors Warn of Fiscal Fallout After State Spends $18 Billion Surplus
ICE Agents Fired at Incoming Van in Maryland
Federal Judge Rules That Michigan Cannot Disrupt International Line 5 Pipeline
Tipsheet

An Individual Mandate For Guns

Yesterday South Dakota lawmakers introduced an individual mandate that will be less savory to liberals. It requires all state citizens who are 21 or over to buy a gun. It kicks in on January 1, 2012 after which South Dakota residents have a six month grace period to purchase a firearm.
Advertisement


Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) told the Argus Leader that he knows the measure will fail, but it's purpose is to make a point about the individual mandate in the health care law.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."
Once government requires individuals to buy one product, why wouldn't it stop at another?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos