Tuesday, February 1, 2011

South Carolina bill is a strategic move

We learned today that five lawmakers from South Dakota have introduced a bill that will require all SC residents to carry a firearm "sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense" within six months of turning 21.  Republican Hal Wick is supporting the silly bill knowing full well that it will not pass the litmus test of common sense and will be "killed" soon. 


Unphased, Mr. Wick said “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."  

Why is this considered a strategic move?  With the recent developments in Florida with a district Judge's ruling that Obamacare was unconstitutional because it forces people to purchase something, Mr. Wick has deftly added to the hurdles that anyone opposing U.S. District Judge's Robert Vinson's ruling has to take into account.  After the SC bill is deemed unconstitutional, it is simply a matter of connecting the dots to show that Obamacare is entirely and utterly unconstitutional because it does the same silly thing.  


No one should be forced by the government to buy anything and people have made this point to no avail.  Now, they have to face the fact that when the exact same law is rejected in South Carolina on constitutional grounds, it can, should and will be also deemed unconstitutional in Florida.

1 comment:

  1. I think you've confused the two states. South Dakota is not South Carolina. Stick to things that you might know about in your own county. or do some research before you make claims.

    ReplyDelete