It would be inherently more legal than the health insurance mandate in Obamacare, since, as far as I can tell by reading the SD Constitution, there is nothing that would prohibit the law (specifically in the Legislative powers)
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.â€
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.
Of course, the five are not really serious. They are, in fact, making a point
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“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,†he said.
Bingo
At the heart of the states’ lawsuit is the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” Judge Vinson writes.
South Dakota would be on a more legal ground if they required all citizens to purchase health insurance: there is nothing to ban that in their Constitution. The US Constitution, however, doesn’t provide any authority to force every US citizen to purchase health insurance.
