rep-lynne-disanto-sd_1
In 2012, only Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming residents enjoyed constitutional or permitless carry. In 2012, the South Dakota House and Senate passed a constitutional carry bill. It was vetoed by Gov Daugaard. In 2015, constitutional carry passed the South Dakota House, only to be killed by a Senate committee. This year, Representative Lynne DiSanto (above) is once again giving constitutional carry the old college try.

From siouxcityjournal.com:

PIERRE, S.D. — A Republican state lawmaker plans to sponsor a bill in the upcoming legislative session that would allow people who can legally carry a concealed handgun in South Dakota to do so without a permit.

Right now, it’s a misdemeanor under state law for someone to carry a concealed pistol or to have one concealed in a vehicle without a permit. Rep. Lynne DiSanto said Monday that her bill is about personal protection.

Constitutional carry has made great strides since 2012; 11 states now have it. The graphic below illustrates the incremental restoration of the right to bear arms in the United States. Green indicates permitless or constitutional carry states.

right-to-carry-2016

The difficulty in passing constitutional carry in South Dakota remains the same: getting the bill past Governor Daugaard. Now that several more states have successfully passed constitutional carry without ill effect, now that gun rights are ascendant, the bill may just have a chance of becoming law. Watch his space.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Gun Watch

Recommended For You

42 Responses to South Dakota: Constitutional Carry for 2016?

    • No it’s not. Anyone can can carry in ME. If you do not have a conceal carry permit, you need to inform a cop you are carrying if you come in contact with one.

    • Maybe eventually. Need to get rid of those signage laws first.

      With luck, we’ll see Utah, South Dakota, and NH go constitutional concealed carry in 2017. Montana keeps passing it in the legislature, but they keep electing Democrap governors who veto.

        • Nothing. Every state that has removed the statutes against carrying without a permit has retained their permit for reciprocity and other reasons. You do not have to worry.

          Vermont never had a permit system.

        • WHOA!! Careful with your terminology, there!!! That sounds like VT prohibited carry altogether. Quite the contrary, VT never had any law against carry, either CC or OC, thus there was no *requirement* for a permit. Like, literally, *never*. Gun grabbers have told me that’s because they are peace-loving individuals, completely dismissing the chicken-or-egg thing. But they have somehow never had a problem with two-gun cowboy rigs, gunfights at the OK corral, or buckets of blood running in the streets.

        • It would seem to me that if you reside in a state that has Constitutional Carry, and especially if we get 50 state reciprocity (please), that a state-issued photo ID from your home State should be accepted. NO additional permitting should be required.

          I’m sure many people will disagree.

        • Good point which directly relates to the issues concerning this “movement” started by a few to go “Constitutional Carry.” The central point takes the form of a question: What good is Constitutional Carry?? Because of situations like yours, we know some of the important negatives. Most of those relate to the matter of identity. As in, “Is that stranger in the shopping mall with a gun visible on his belt a criminal, a psycho shooter, or just a guy exercising his Constitutional rights?” And as you bring up, what is my status outside my state of residence? Open Carry and Constitutional Carry seem to have the same supporters. And the most common claim from them is “Why don’t you just get used to it?”
          They are like drunks at a party – there legally and drinking legally but making themselves unpredictable.

          We are not a pure democracy but in some things a democratic principle always applies: The majority get to set the agreed upon rules and laws. And in the case of Shall Issue concealed carry: the majority of states have agreed that carrying a defensive weapon concealed is fine – PROVIDED you get your identity certified. And that’s for the same reason there’s no argument against drivers licenses -which are recognized among all 50 states.

          Hamurabi’s Code goes back to about 1754 BC . The reason it’s so famous is the it gathered a coherent list of laws which everyone understood and was required to follow. The modern term is “uniform code” – that which everyone recognizes, understands and follows. The current mish-mash does the opposite. Something that has worked for 3800 years to everyone’s benefit is something to be kept, not something to be shoved aside because a few people want to think of themselves as “better or smarter or more free.”

      • I fully expect to see in Iowa in 2017 now that that POS faux “Governor” Gronstal was throw out on his ass by the IGO crowd. CONSERVATIVES now control the Senate (and house) and RINO Gov Branstad better stay out of the way, The new Senate leader is Bill Dix (replaced Gronstal) I personally know to be to be a strong Constitutional Conservative.

  1. Part of me would like to see this implemented in Montana but as it stands, a CCP allows one to forego the dreaded NICS call. You still file a 4437 but you never have to worry about getting a “delay” response from some slob on the other side of the phone. Wouldn’t a con-carry make you go back to being subjected to NICS?

    • That’s actually why some states may still issue permits even if one isn’t required. The other reason to do so is for reciprocity with other states.

      So even if your state no longer requires a permit, there are still a couple of reasons why you may want to get one: avoiding NICS checks, and ability to carry in other states (that honor permits issued by your state).

  2. Sadly, the “evil 10”, states where gun rights go to die, can only be helped by federal action.

    …as we all know, that can be a two edged sword.

      • Liberals have no interest or desire to control people who are identical to them in thought and deed. In other words, if you are a member of their hive.

        Of course, if you leave the fold, they will kill you – either metaphorically or literally.

        • I think you have it right, Mr. Esworthy. I would only add that it’s exactly the same with the Republicans. Both parties handed us (voters) a shitty deal – the two most unlikely and unlikable candidates imaginable. (lets remember to “thank them both” regularly over the next 4 years.)

          And look back at the Republican reaction to Trump: massive rejection by the people who make up the Power Group in the Republican Party. But that proved to be their panic first reaction- because their real fear was that Trump would lead his voter base and control THEIR JOB DESTINIES. “You can’t blame them” – but you really can – for not wanting to lose their source of huge income and power.

          Now we get to watch D. J. Trump try to walk a tightrope over the Grand Canyon for 4 years. Exciting isn’t it? (sarcasm)

  3. If anyone thinks people in general are rational and sufficiently informed about any important matter: just look to what happened in this general election. But as to how to handle personal protection items like firearms: the PREFERRED method is with some, reasonable and justifiable QUALIFICATION standards in place. That means – obviously – the majority of states have had great success with Shall Issue concealed carry.

    Unrestricted allowance of who can carry and how guns can be carried has not shown any advantage in the states where it’s in place.

    • “If anyone thinks people in general are rational and sufficiently informed about any important matter: just look to what happened in this general election.”

      The voters looked at who was running and voted in a perfectly rational and informed manner.

      They voted against tyranny.

      “Unrestricted allowance of who can carry and how guns can be carried has not shown any advantage in the states where it’s in place.”

      Got a citation on that, sport?

      • 1. Who said I was referring only to voters?

        2. Generalizing about any mass of people is either ignorant or dishonest.
        “they voted against tyranny” is almost funny but it’s really pedestrian doctrinaire bull sh*t. Your comment, you own it.

        3. Citation: the total lack of ANY indication there’s either advantage or disadvantage. That gap in information is because IT MAKES NO DAMNED DIFFERENCE except for the advantage Shall Issue has and IS PREFERRED BY THE GREAT MAJORITY OF STATES (which happen to coincide with the states that voted for Trump, by the way).

        So it’s your turn to provide an answer: What proof do you have that people in general act rationally and decide rationally on important matters like elections? Remember: the “election seasons” are packed a mile high with erroneous and misleading propaganda disguised as “news” and “information.” That alone ensures irrational, mistaken decisions by voters. If propaganda didn’t work, no one would use it but every side uses it.

        What made you assume voters “voted against tyranny?” That’s an assumption BUT most of those who are acquainted with the facts in this election KNOW that the resentment felt by so many working class voters against Clinton and the Democrats made the telling difference. 2nd Amendment advocacy DID add a bit to the end result for Trump but not nearly the amount or degree THAT IT COULD HAVE. If gun owners voted as if the 2nd Amendment mattered to them: there could have been 100 million votes for Trump, not only about 62 million.

        • Jack. What proof is there that you are acting or deciding rationally on your comments here?

          These large, sweeping claims about sheeple or the iq level of entire segments of the population make me nervous and suspicious of the internet “expert” making the claim.

          If their opinion isn’t in lock step with yours they’re “irrational”?

        • “they’re voting against tyranny” – you don’t think that’s doctrinaire sloganeering?? What WE ALL voted against was Hillary Clinton. NOT “against tyranny.” See?

          Oh, and it’s not exactly recognized legitimate strategy to start attacking someone else’s rationality. I reacted to the evidence before my eyes in black and white. I know the difference between rational and irrational and who’s being which in their writing. And that’s not an attack on you – just FYI. You probably know the difference too – you just can’t stand the discomfort of being corrected. Can’t really blame anyone since I’d do the same – most times.

          We’ve both talked about evidence so lets go back to that: I’ve seen the many-many exit polls and follow up “analysis” by the media (who I’m sure we both agree don’t have a clue yet). Even so – I did not see even ONE report of anyone saying they “voted against tyranny.” Most in fact say very similar things: they either voted AGAINST Clinton OR voted AGAINST arrogant Democrat / Liberal / Progressive BS they’ve had to listen to for years now.

        • “So it’s your turn to provide an answer: What proof do you have that people in general act rationally and decide rationally on important matters like elections?”

          The same people that elected Obama *twice* elected Trump this time.

          According to the Left, voting for Obama was proof of rationality, if not outright ‘enlightenment’. The first post-racist election…

    • I agree, Jack! Hillary actually won a few electoral votes, indicating a real lack of understanding on the part of voters. Of course, it could be argued that is due to her 25-year record of continuous lies to literally everybody!

      And I think you may be right about constitutional carry, due to deliberately asking the wrong question. The point is, there has been no DISADVANTAGE to unrestricted carry, contrary to the lies of Obama, Clinton, etc. If it is not any problem, in America I would expect us to go with freedom, not control by a political party which is clearly seeking tyranny.

      • We’re on a parallel track but not the same track. I find (after years of being involved) that Shall Issue Concealed Carry laws are preferred just because the AMOUNT OF CONTROL BY THE STATE IS LIMITED to just ensuring competent gun handling, knowledge of safety rules [as taught by the NRA] and knowledge of state laws where the applicants live.

        There’s no unwarranted or negative effect from that and it’s easy to forget that not all state controls are simply a matter of “tyrannical whim” or party ideology. Remember, it’s in the Constitution: “with the consent of the People.”

        • “Shall not be infringed” does not make exception for unelected bureaucrats deciding when I have been examined enough or trained enough to carry a firearm, that is *my* responsibility. I have mentioned this here before, but don’t think you’d joined us: When I got around to getting a carry permit, I had been carrying when I felt it was needed for over 40 years. In most if not all states, NYC, DC, CA, everywhere. I had been shooting since I was 12, and earned expert marksman badges for both pistol and rifle during 20 years in the military. Now, some twit with a government job wishes to determine whether I fit *his* parameters to carry a gun in accordance with 2A? I was *required* to carry a concealed firearm in airports, aboard aircraft, as part of my job, for one particular year I carried a full auto SBR and a handgun on board an aircraft several times a week. There are people on this site regularly whose firearm experience in peace and war far exceeds mine, but I feel mine is sufficient to debunk any claim that it is government’s role to “control” my access to firearms. 2A says it is not.

        • “There are people on this site regularly whose firearm experience in peace and war far exceeds mine, but I feel mine is sufficient to debunk any claim that it is government’s role to “control” my access to firearms. 2A says it is not.” — Factually speaking, you’re wrong on two counts with your assumption. As follows:
          1. The 2nd Amendment MAKES CLEAR that carrying arms relates to the ability to SERVE in a militia. And all laws concerning militias either make clear or clearly imply THE NECESSITY FOR “REGULATION” which translates to meeting training standards SET BY AUTHORITIES ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. So The People are the ones who deem it necessary that you and all other armed citizens SHOW EVIDENCE OF YOUR TRAINING.

          Like it or not, agree or not, we are all responsible to the American people ultimately.

          2. Similarly, you aren’t the first to claim long experience in something and then propose THAT WE ACCEPT THAT AS FACT. As far as anyone reading our discussion knows. you may be without any experience or training at all !!

          Your attempt at SELF CERTIFICATION is exactly like Hillary Clinton self-certifying her readiness to be president. MANY OF US ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THAT AND WITH YOU.

          You make of yourself a very dangerous individual – first by making it clear you ARE GOVERNMENT TRAINED and then by asserting ONLY YOUR STATEMENTS are true, valid or that they make “good sense” for anyone BUT YOU.

          Finally, because I can find no evidence of improper or harmful involvement with the Shall Issue certification process, I have to say you’re at the very least grossly mis-stating the FACTS ABOOUT SHALL ISSUE concealed carry laws.

        • You cannot be serious, Jack. Everybody on the planet who cares already knows, and everyone else can google it in a minute, “well regulated” at the time meant well equipped and trained. Not controlled by a government agency. Your argument concerning “regulated” is total nonsense, and I have a really difficult time believing you did not know that when you brought it up, which makes you a troll, as well as a liar. Good day.

          And, your own argument concerning “shall issue” includes that it accomplishes nothing, yet you seem to claim that it involves government less than no issue at all, disband the inspectors, carry how you like. Nonsense. It cannot be less than zero.

        • “Watch it with the name-calling you doctrinaire punk.”

          Or *what*, Jack? That sounds like a threat…

    • Unrestricted allowance of who can carry and how guns can be carried has not shown any advantage in the states where it’s in place.

      The way you phrased this suggests you are aware there has not been any disadvantage shown in those states, but choose instead to deliberately turn the question 180 degrees around from its proper form. A sane person would think that government regulations, which inherently involve a restriction of liberty, the spending of public money, and the use of government force against its own citizens, would need to be justified by some positive advantage, not the other way around.

      • Your prejudice against government may be understandable but doesn’t stand up to history. WE STARTED with a limited government – constitutionally defined and operated. Don’t blame me and say I “turned the question around.” It’s both political parties that have un-done our constitutional government. BOTH parties will be seen to act against the Constitution in order to set up whatever “modifications” benefit the insiders in both parties.

        Blame the two political parties (and don’t imagine that any of the “third parties” is any better). That’s why we have an over-intrusive, over controlling busybody government. Both parties want it that way. And that’s how Trump won – by invading a party that’s not his own and “re-setting” the goal so that he could say, “I listened to you.” That’s why he got more primary votes than any other Republican candidate – by NOT BEING a Republican. And that’s why the Republican insiders were outraged and tried to sabotage him and replace him with one of their own. Additionally: you already know that the NRA was Trump’s first and it turns out biggest supporter. That’s because the NRA people KNEW Trump would commit to defending the 2nd Amendment and would un-do the Democrats’ anti-2nd Amendment accomplishments and future agenda.

        So, while it’s understandable you’d say what you’ve said. The fact is that we depend on SOME government intervention in private affairs. LIMITED INTERVENTION using government force AGAINST CRIMINALS AND ENEMIES is a good thing which also happens to be in complete compliance with the Constitution INCLUDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. So, yes, government licensing of citizens for such things as concealed carry IS a good thing. No one actually accepts that every stranger is just ‘exercising their rights’ without some form of assurance that stranger isn’t actually a threat. This is done BY CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE so it’s not in any way outside the bounds of sanity.

        • “No one actually accepts that every stranger is just ‘exercising their rights’ without some form of assurance that stranger isn’t actually a threat.”

          From where, does the “assurance that stranger isn’t actually a threat” even come from? It’s not like we wear our CCW permits stapled to our clothing. The average person isn’t going to pay that much attention to body language of a person carrying a side arm, they are going to focus on the pistol (and possibly the implied (in their own mind) threat. Assuming they even see it to begin with.

        • Of course no one is going to “just accept” a visibly armed stranger at large in public (places). Which is why concealed carry is the best workaround. Now THAT logically leads to the need for an IMPARTIAL authority to issue licenses under terms acceptable to all. Your point seems to be based on the (popular) assumption that the “authority” is bound to be “PARTIAL” to an ideology which includes (we agree->) irrational prejudice against armed citizens. Well, in practice it’s “maybe” that’ll be true. In my state (Michigan), we have the form of Shall Issue concealed carry licensing wihch DOES require (1) informing applicants of the laws concerning legitimate self defense shootings and (2) familiarization with handguns including at least an hour of supervised live fire training.

          It’s a whole workday – 8 hours just to get to that minimal level of competence and assurance. This has been in effect since late 2002 – and IS AGREEABLE to everyone, including both Democrats and Republicans and the public at large.And it’s all monitored by the trusted Michigan State Police. There hasn’t been ONE complaint about this law, its provisions or the MSP’s oversight role since – and that includes over the past 13+ years when an additional 550,000 licenses have been issued (the starting number under “May Issue” was just 50,00 so the total is now 570,000 licenses issued to date).

          My point is: that in states like Michigan, this system of government regulation has worked very well – because the majority of the public and voters SAY so. We both already know: about 17 states don’t follow the above and we also agree THEY ARE WRONG. The “trick” here is to unify behind nationwide Shall Issue and nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry licensing. Rather than: argue with each other over “Constitutional Carry” and “Open Carry.” This isn’t “politics 101” but it is “Politics 303” where we’ve learned what’s been working over time and go all out to make it national policy. Am I getting anything through on this?

        • Thank you for the informed and thought out answer. I would have replied sooner but I’ve been away from the computer for a few days (and it’s been a wonderful few days at that).

          ” Now THAT logically leads to the need for an IMPARTIAL authority to issue licenses under terms acceptable to all. Your point seems to be based on the (popular) assumption that the “authority” is bound to be “PARTIAL” to an ideology which includes (we agree->) irrational prejudice against armed citizens. ”

          The “THAT” you are referencing, minus additional facts may lead one down the path of a need for impartial authority. I disagree. Though I agree that IF there is going to be such an authority at all, they MUST be impartial. This decision being subject to the whims of someone reading the application is bupkis at best.

          To clarify where I stand: I strongly disagree that anyone should be granted the authority to make a decision at all regarding who can carry who cannot. Plainly put, if someone falls into the bucket of “those who are denied firearms”, why in the flying circus are they out in public in the first place? If they shouldn’t have arms, they shouldn’t be in public.

          On top of that, no laws whatsoever are going to stop said person from carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise. One of those felons I’ve know for a long time, he was wrongly convicted (the judge said as much during sentencing) of a non violent felony. He carries anyway. I support him 100%. He’s no danger to anyone except the person who decides he is an easy mark.

          So, back around to my original point: The citizenry should never have allowed *anyone* to be granted the authority to deny or allow us the right to our own armed defense. Regardless of what said arms happen to be. This was a failure of the people, and only the people can correct it. The problem is, way to many people are happy to wait for the government to fix it for them. I also firmly believe this was a product of silent consent for fear of persecution. After all. All us “gun nuts” are just paranoid anyway aren’t we?

  4. The Governor says that Constitutional Carry allows nut jobs and criminals to carry a gun without restriction.

    I have to ask, if these people are so dangerous, why are they allowed to run free doing their dirty work?

    Sadly, our society seems to be full of nut jobs and criminals these days.

    New Constitutional Amendment: All those convicted of a felony, or who are a danger to themselves or others, are hereby stripped of their citizenship and permanently removed from the United States of America. Non-citizens are subject to the same penalty.

    No more nut jobs and criminals!

  5. The governor won’t sign the bill because it doesn’t feel right to allow people to exercise their natural, civil, and constitutional right to bear arms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *