This is a hypothetical scenario in the form of a law exam question, but as Instapundit Glenn Reynolds says, it’s “a fun hypothetical” that actually has constitutional weight behind it:

Assume that the United States can lawfully force the people of the States to buy health insurance using Congress’ commerce power.

After a string of cartel-related violent incidents in northern Mexico, a National Militia Act is lawfully enacted by Congress and signed into law by POTUS, compelling every law-abiding American citizen age 18 and older to buy two firearms — a revolver and a rifle — and to acquire firearms training to better provide for domestic security.

A similar law has existed in Switzerland for many years; and although a plurality of Americans support it, opposition to it has been strident, if not strong. Gun-control advocates — most of them progressives — have painted the act as a giveaway to gun manufacturers and a threat to peace and order in their communities.

What arguments would you make if you were the attorney general for your state and your governor commanded you to file a lawsuit to attempt to invalidate the mandate on constitutional grounds? Do not refer to the Commerce Clause in your answer.

It’s also proof that there is at least one enlightened redneck who went to law school. If word of this idea spreads, rednecks across the land may start lobbying for it.

UPDATE: I tweaked the text slightly to reflect the correction in the comment below from the brains behind the idea of mandatory gun ownership.