Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Government

Would Mandatory Gun Ownership Laws Violate Citizens’ Constitutional Rights?

Mar. 12, 2013 8:47am Billy Hallowell

This February 4, 2013 photo illustration in Manassas, Virginia, shows a man holding a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Would mandating that citizens own guns violate their constitutional rights?

It’s an odd question, especially considering that the vast majority of discussion surrounding Second Amendment rights of late has focused upon proposed restrictions on firearms — not mandates that citizens actually purchase weapons.

But this latter notion is one that has been proposed and debated in select communities across the nation. The general idea is that requiring gun ownership will lead to a decrease in overall crime (i.e. the more homes that have guns, the less frequent break-ins and other related illegal activity will be).

Last week, TheBlaze told you about David Marsters, a retired cop and a resident of Sabattus, Maine. He’s been pushing a controversial proposal that would require every head of household in the town to own a firearm. While he argued that imposing such a measure would help protect the community and cut down on crime, local authorities inevitably rejected his proposal.

But, despite this failure, leaders in Nelson, Ga., also believe wholeheartedly that the gun mandate (or, more appropriately labeled, the intense urge for citizens to bear arms) is the way to go. Councilwoman Edith Portillo defended the proposal in an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Monday. The main push for an armed citizenry comes as city leaders claim that police often don’t make it to crime scenes on time.

Portillo noted that those who are staunchly opposed to having a gun won’t need to obtain one, although the law does say that heads of household should possess one, Mediaite reports. Watch her discuss the issue, below:

And these communities aren’t alone. This morning, the Associated Press reported that a separate initiative mandating gun ownership in Byron, Maine, was also turned down. When faced with the question, “Shall the town of Byron vote to require all households to have firearms and ammunitions to protect the citizens?,” 50 of the town’s residents voted “no.”

Some gun owners in Byron even spoke out after the vote, saying that they believe firearms are a right — but that they should not be a requirement. This idea of requiring people to bear arms is nothing new, as it has roots in the nation’s founding. That said, it’s a relatively foreign concept in contemporary society.

As TheBlaze previously noted in exploring America’s gun control history, at various times in the nation’s infancy, men were required to own firearms. But whether that should continue today is an entirely different question.

What do you think? Is mandating gun ownership the right course of action — of does it hamper individual rights? Take the poll, below:

Gun Mandate

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (77)

DoOrDie
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:50am
That’s an easy answer, All Of Them!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bohump
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Yes, … Yes, … Yes, …yes, ,..And YES !
  
  Report this comment
- atechgeek
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 12:36pm
  The government just needs to stay out of our business … the government’s job is to 1) Defend the USA from foreign and domestic attacks on its citizenry and the constitution … I was trying to think of more .. but there is no 2) .. Other than 1), leave the states the f alone and let us do our own thing. Just like capitalism, the best states will rise … giving other states the model of success to follow. Do this and the wealth will pour into this country faster than it did before Roosevelt and his trust buster.
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:42pm
  NO NOT ANYMORE AFTER THE DESPICABLE AND DISGRACED SUPREME COURT RULING ON OBAMACARE
  
  If the Government can force people to buy medical insurance then it can force you to buy a gun. If you refuse to buy a gun you must pay a tax. Its really about gun safety you must own a gun to make where you live safe.
  
  Report this comment
- plainolamerican
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 2:08am
  The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.
  
  In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.”[2] This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.
  
  Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this? Yes! Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:
  
  “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” [boldface mine]
  
  That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.
  
  As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry! Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law! See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be.[3]
  
  So! In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congres
  
  Report this comment
ai4px
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:47am
An interesting idea, especially considering the fact that we are required to register for selective service (ie your body belongs to the government, not you), and we can declare anything a tax if you don’t buy it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:40am
And how is this different than Obamacare? Any forced commerce is unconstitutional.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ChrisSTL
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:25am
  Only if it is forced by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not local communities…..is there an echo in here?
  
  Report this comment
- mikem1969
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:39am
  dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot. those were my thoughts exactly, how would this be any more unconstitutional than Obama kill ya care? I would love to see something like this pass just to slap the freaking libs and progressives, aka demons, in the face.
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:47pm
  ChrisSTL
  That’s not the state of the law today as any court sees it, and it’s not the state of the law as the people will it. Why would you want your state or local government to be able to pass laws that violate the Bill of Rights? Why do you insist that reasserting a pre-14th Amendment interpretation of States Rights is more important than preserving our essential personal liberties?
  
  Report this comment
Patriotic_Mercenary
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:17am
I have a book, titled, “Life in a Medieval Village”. It was mandatory to practice with various arms due to the need for the local lord to call up forces in defense of his territory. They were required to work with swords, bows, pikes or anything else the village was capable of making and maintaining. It wasn’t just because they were beholden to the aristocrats. It’s also so they could protect their homes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 3:39pm
  A call to return to the middle ages, before the renaissance and the Age of Discovery?
  …and people wonder why conservatives are increasingly seen as extremist and out of touch.
  
  Report this comment
sinner-saint
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:14am
If a person doesn’t want to protect themself and chooses to die/be injured, then let them. It’s their choice. The job of the police is not to protect people…be their personal body guard persay. They may be minutes away to help and not able to get to you in time to help you. Seconds are precious in a life and death situation. People who refuse to help themself and do the things required to help themself…..that rely on others to help them when they could help themself, are a burden upon society. They should be billed for the service of others and for refusing/failing to help themself. The people should not have to pay for their irresponsibility and refusal to help themself.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jessieH
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:14am
Forcing Citizens to buy anything is illegal.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:15am
  not according to the supreme court. tell that to the IRS when obamacare hits full force.
  
  Report this comment
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:39am
  Agreed.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:44am
  I agree, but it seems we have already lost that battle and the majority of American voters were fine with that.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:58am
  Still does not make it right, or even legal. Forcing anyone to buy a firearm is, of course, just as illegal.
  
  If the President restricts guns, it’s illegal because the Constitution is greater than Presidential authority.
  If Congress passes a law granting the President the power to do it, it’s still illegal because Congress does not have the authority to give the President unconstitutional authority.
  If the Supreme Court says it is Constitutional, it is still illegal because the Court does not have the authority to redefine the words of the Constitution to mean something other than what is stated..
  
  Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:09am
disband police depts and cancel the 9/11 calling centers and return to the land of freedom. The choice tot defend oneself will become clearer. The police state has created a society of leeches.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:01am
accepting the argument they could make others safer does not work… a person who does not want or is afraid of firearms is more of a hazard… someone who has not worked through the yips and hesitations may not fire and provide bad guys with a new weapon to use.

but that’s just pragmatism.

by the same token that those opposed to gun ownership should not force their belief on those of us who value the protections offered by firearms and the uses thereof, it would be wrong to try to force those who do not want them to buy or us firearms.

i cannot understand someone not wanting to do everything possible to protect themselves, and have wondered whether people who avow they ‘could never hurt another person’ when put in that life or death situation don’t have at least that flash where they realize too late that is not how they really feel, but history is replete with too many examples of people being lambs or lemmings led passively to their own slaughter.

I will Fight ‘gun control’ but i would also oppose ‘mandatory’ gun ownership.
At best, government/ school provided instruction by TRAINED people i would endorse, as means of limiting the ‘cool, we found this gun, let’s play with it.’

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- EdwardElricUST
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:59pm
  well with the current admin the inmates are running the asylum……….welcome to amerika.
  
  Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:46am
Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Mandate my middle finger chumps. Sick and tired of interference government. Leave me the hell alone and we will get along just fine.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:03am
  you have no choice on jury duty…
  freedom isn’t free. It is the duty of all citizens to be armed.If it is constitutional for them to force you to buy insurance, under the same ruling compulsory gun ownership is also legal.
  It is time for the citizen to again take up their responsibility to protect themselves and their communities and to stop leaching off the police and military for their security.
  
  Report this comment
Warren28
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:42am
Maybe this was already said but all you need to do is “attach a tax to it’s non-compliance” and it is constitutional. That was how Roberts ruled on the mandate. I don’t know how this could be different. Also, if needed, they would fund police with the tax and make the claim that owning the gun prevents crime thus the connective logic. They don’t even need to prove it, just make the claim. Just like not owning health insurance burdens the system was their argument. Even though many rich people could self-pay for healthcare and not burden the system.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sinner-saint
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:40am
Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. A person has the right to own a gun or to not own a gun. This is a federal right. no person has the right to force their will onto the other though. Pro- gunners do not have the right to make/require non-pro gunners to own a gun and non- pro gunners do not have the right to force pro-gunners to give up their guns. It’s a two way street when it comes to rights. One person does not have the right to control/force their will onto the other person. When that occurs, one person’s rights are infringed upon.

Right now, we have a bunch of pro-gun control/ban people trying to infringe upon the rights of pro-gun people. This is very wrong and will only lead to a violent clash if it is not stopped. The pro-gun people are the ones being offended/injured. They have the full right by the U.S. Constitution to own guns. The pro-ban/control people are trying to violate the U.S. Constitution and the rights of gun owners. The pro-gun owners have the right to arrest and charge the pro-gun ban/control people with treason according to the U.S. Constitution – the highest law in the land. They are willfully violating the U.S. Constitution and the rights of pro-gun people and charges need to be brought upon each person who is trying to violate the rights of pro-gun people.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:06am
  it isn’t just a right, it is a duty.
  You can be jailed for failing to perform jury duty.
  The militia is all the people, not very effective if they are not armed.
  the current police state and government infringement on the peoples rights is only possible by the majority of the citizens not performing their duties and responsibilities as citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisSTL
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 11:23am
  So are you saying that the US Constitution prohibits local communities and states from enacting laws and/or ordinances that if put in affect, would require that citizens purchase something? I recently had to purchase a new mailbox because the city I live in passed a minimum height ordinance. It was annoying, but I don’t think the US Constitution prohibits them from doing that.
  
  Again, I am not in favor of mandating that people purchase guns, I agree that it should be up to the people, but to say that it is unconstitutional seems to me to be unsupported.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:00pm
  WarMonger is right on the nail.
  
  The Militia Law of 1903 defines the Reserve Militia to be all able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 USC 311).
  
  It is a duty as well as a right. This pesky little law seems to require the ownership of a firearm for all of those defined in the law.
  
  Report this comment
Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:35am
What sort of gun is to be mandated? How many guns? Will just one per household do, or one per household member above, say, the age of 15? Can I use my mandatory gun for hunting, or do I have to keep it ready at home? Loaded at all times, or can I leave it unloaded? How much ammunition do I have to keep on hand? Any rules as to how I have to store it? Can I claim conscientious-objector status if my religion abhors guns? If I can’t afford a gun, will the government subsidize my purchase, or just give me a freebie? Will there be “exchanges” as with mandatory purchase of health insurance? Just querying.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:14am
  This is where the regulations come in. Conscientious objectors would be exempt, just as they are in military service. There is no one that can’t afford a gun. one per household min. would be the requirement, most likely a long gun is the minimum. For every person that would claim to not be able to afford one, I bet you would find thousands of dollars a year wasted on drinking, cigarettes, or entertainment that would easily be used to purchase said firearm. Freedom isn’t free.
  
  Report this comment
truemedia
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:34am
if they can mandate obamacare than Ga or any other state can mandate guns (which is your Original RIGHT) anyway

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
truemedia
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:29am
its certainly more consistent with the Constitution and the history of our founding than what we see now with the attempt to STOP citizen from KEEPING and BEARING ARMS

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:26am
just because you want to do something does not mean it is constitutional. liberals suffer the same disease

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 2:46pm
  @Soy, Right on. The same religious freedom argument some here like to use about mandating birth control purchases to those who are against it for religious reasons would apply to mandating a pacifist based on the scripture to keep a weapon.
  
  @TheBlaze, Please stop asking your readers whether or not they own or intend to own firearms. I see nothing good that could come from people sharing that information online. Especially in the environment we find ourselves in today.
  
  Report this comment
texastommy
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:23am
… but we can be mandated to have health insurance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:29am
  that is also unconstitutional
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:19am
  soy-
  So I take it you are going to refuse and pay the “tax” . Income tax is not constitutional, but they have been putting people in debtors prison ever since they passed that act.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:23am
Constitutionally mandating anything is absurd even for the FedGov, and, via the Tenth, the states too!

The Constitution is a menu of prohibitions protecting natural rights, that the PROGRESSIVES would cure with their “bill of negative rights.” Remember all mainstream American politics is progressive, be it libertarian, democratic or GOP. Only The Constitution Party represents principled Country Class conservatism.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ChrisSTL
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:13am
@ Love the Kids
As far as I can see, it is only unconstitutional if the FEDERAL GOVT mandates it….not local communities.

I would not vote to force others to do as I think they should, but it is not unconstitutional.

I notice some are voting in the poll that it is unconstitutional. I could probably be persuaded on this if the argument is sound. Does anyone have the argument for which section of the constitution this would violate? Again, we are talking about local communities, note the FED GOVT.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:27am
  so can a state or local community enslave people?
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:29am
  or can a state or local government restrict your speech, lock you up without trial? 14th amendment includes the ‘incorporation clause’, which means our constitutional freedoms must be observed by state and local laws. Unfortunately, sometimes the courts ignore it – like for romneycare
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:29am
  If they can force me to buy a gun then they can also force me to buy health insurance (or Pez dispensers or little umbrellas for my drinks or…).
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:38am
  The Amish don’t own guns. It would violate their right to freedom of religion.
  
  Report this comment
Shoot2Stop
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:06am
Or offer a property tax reduction for those of us who are armed. After all, those who can take care of themselves reduce the load on government services.

.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
maggiepie
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:05am
It should be the choice of the individual. Gun ownership should not be forced om anyone. Some
people just don’t like guns. On the other side, gun control laws should not be forced om law abiding
gun owners. All rights should NOT be infringed on.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oldguy49
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:19am
  AGREED……i have no problem with others that are not armed………………just don’t come to my home expecting me to protect you
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:40am
  @Oldguy God forbid.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 10:22am
  old guy-
  unarmed people are the ones that create the police state where your freedoms are now in jeopardy. They are cowards that want others to do the protecting while they do nothing for themselves.
  
  Report this comment
conservativejon
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:02am
dont mandate that i must buy insurance dont mandate that i must own a gun. the fact that i voluntary have both is irrelevant.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Selfreliance
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 8:58am
Come on, Blaze. Surely this story is incomplete without telling the tale of Kennesaw Georgia, which has had a town ordinance requiring each household to own a gun since 1982. Please update your article!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- psychokittis
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:09am
  Not only did Kennesaw get missed by this article, but the results of the 1982 law got missed, too. Violent crime plummeted after it passed. That said, the reason for the 2nd amendment is to keep government from getting too big for its britches, so such a law might be a good thing for the res\t of the country.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:30am
  sounds like bizarro bloomberg….does not make it right
  
  Report this comment
love the kids
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 8:53am
How could it, it isn’t a violation of your rights to be forced to buy healthcare???

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Blivit
  Posted on March 12, 2013 at 9:08am
  wait for it… next comes government mandated gun exchanges and ammo stamps to help those below the poverty line get the mandated guns and ammo to feed them!
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 8:53am
Let the people of each state, town, county and so forth decide for themselves in such matters.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FlagWavingPatriot
Posted on March 12, 2013 at 8:51am
Just let people live their lives freely. Why is that so hard?

Don’t mandate guns, don’t ban guns. Let people–wait for it–DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.