On Friday, March 17, 2017, Governor Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota vetoed HB 1072, known as the Constitutional Carry bill, and HB 1156, which would have allowed a small number of South Dakota holders of Enhanced Concealed Carry permits to carry inside of the state Capitol. His veto letters reproduced below, sans headers and signature block [via sd.gov]:

I herewith return to you House Bill 1072 with my VETO.

House Bill 1072 is an Act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol.

The proponents of House Bill 1072 did not testify about problems that exist with our current permitting laws in the bill’s hearings.  I am unaware of a single instance in which a person who could lawfully possess a gun was denied a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  Our permit laws are effective in screening people who are not eligible to carry a concealed weapon.

Over the last three years, Minnehaha and Pennington Counties have turned down nearly 600 permit applicants who were disqualified due to mental illness or due to violent or drug-related crimes.  It is for this reason the South Dakota Sheriffs Association, the South Dakota Police Chiefs Association, the South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, and the South Dakota Fraternal Order of Police all opposed House Bill 1072.

Proponents of this bill argued that our state concealed carry laws infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  I respectfully disagree with that notion.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”

As an example of a lawful limitation Justice Scalia states that “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment….”

As a longtime member of the NRA, I support the right to bear arms.  South Dakota’s current permit process is simple and straightforward, and permits can be obtained in a matter of minutes.

It is paramount that our state protect the rights of our citizens while at the same time protecting the lives of our citizens. I believe our current laws appropriately protect both interests, and I ask that you sustain my veto.

Here is Governor Daugaard’s letter for HB 1156 From sd.gov:

I respectfully return to you House Bill 1156, with my VETO.

House Bill 1156 is an Act to allow a concealed pistol in the Capitol with an enhanced concealed pistol permit.

On any given day, the array of people found in our historic State Capitol building includes elected officials, tourists, state employees, and school children.  The protection we have in the building, from law enforcement officers in uniform or plain clothes, provides a secure environment.  I am satisfied that our Highway Patrol is doing its job, and their important work would be made more difficult if others are allowed to carry weapons into the Capitol.

The law enforcement officers who protect our Capitol building have specialized training which is repeated on a regular basis.  This ensures when called upon, they are ready to make split-second and life-saving decisions.  They prepare themselves mentally at the beginning of each shift, so they are ready to react appropriately should the need arise.

In contrast, the 1,878 South Dakotans who hold an enhanced concealed pistol permit were required to undertake approximately eight hours of instruction, just once.  This training includes South Dakota law relating to the use of force, the safe and responsible use of handguns, self-defense principles, and live fire training.  There is no training requirement for renewal, even after five years have passed.

During the legislative session, meaningful debates among the public and legislators are frequent and oftentimes passionate.  Where emotions can run high, it is important to be protected by people who are routinely trained to manage dangerous situations.  Law enforcement training focuses on knowing when to pull the trigger—and when not to.  Our law enforcement officers are uniquely able to protect the public, and I believe this bill would complicate that work.

For these reasons, I ask that you sustain my veto.

Supporters of the two bills have said that they will work to override the Governor’s vetoes. That possibility seems unlikely, because the necessary two thirds votes were not there when the bills were passed this year.

Governor Daugaard vetoed another Constitutional Carry bill in 2012.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

26 Responses to South Dakota Governor Daugaard Vetoes Constitutional Carry

  1. “…which would have allowed a small number of South Dakota holders of Enhanced Concealed Carry permits to carry inside of the state Capitol.”

    So, not constitutional carry at all.

  2. ‘We deny the LAWFUL because we can (and they seem to somehow continue to care). We don’t deny the UNLAWFUL, because we cannot seem to tell who they are, and they, by definition, don’t give a rat’s a _ _ for whatever we ask of them.

    We need to assert our power, so we choose to do it against the lawful.’

  3. This is what happens when your a-hole neighbors who needed a job (a/k/a your “government”) doesn’t trust you, or care enough about you to allow you to value your own life, property, and peace & quiet.

  4. “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”

    Scalia was wrong. The exercise of free speech is not limited in any way, by any law. So should not the free exercise of the second be.

      • Re-read what I wrote. You, as Scalia are incorrect. The free exercise of speech is not limited in any way. Certain exercise thereof which infringes upon the rights of others is punishable, but nothing stops one from exercising their mouth. Words have not been stricken from the public domain. Thoughts are not censured. The tools of the 1st Amendment are not outlawed. And thus, nothing bars one from the free exercise thereof. Yes, Scalia, you can stand up in a crowded theatre and yell FIRE.

        • You’re just playing words games. If you can be punished for what you say, your Freedom of Speech is being infringed.

          Further, even if we accept your definition of things, the Freedom of Speech can still be infringed because, in certain limited circumstances, the government does have the ability to impose prior restraint, and forbid you from saying something before it is said, rather than punishing you for saying something that has already been said.

        • If you go by your own pet interpretation then society will lock you up and throw away the key.

          Your ‘right’ is useless.

      • The ability to exercise free speech is not infringed. Not until your speech harms another is there a problem. The same must apply to the 2nd. The ability to keep and bear arms and the free exercise thereof harms no one and therefore should not be regulated in any way. Arms are the tools of the 2nd as words are the tools of the 1st. There are no laws, none, nada, zip, which prevent you from speaking in any way. So there should be no laws which prevent you from keeping and bearing arms.

  5. “Over the last three years, Minnehaha and Pennington Counties have turned down nearly 600 permit applicants who were disqualified due to mental illness or due to violent or drug-related crimes.”

    I have a very tough time believing this. 600 people, who in all likelihood, already attempted to purchase a pistol and were turned down then applied for a permit? I would venture to guess this is a lot like the initial denial from NICS and that 98+% are overturned.

    • How many of these prohibited persons were jailed?

      This FUDD’s logic is identical to the used to kill Constitutional Carry in Iowa during the current session. WHAT 2nd Amendment “shall not be infringed” is so darn hard to understand.

  6. “Over the last three years, Minnehaha and Pennington Counties have turned down nearly 600 permit applicants who were disqualified due to mental illness or due to violent or drug-related crimes.”

    And since these people will clearly not just carry their guns anyway, it’s totally okay to make it harder for people, especially the poor, to carry.

    ARGH

    • I think many are mistaking SD for other states.

      In the South Dakota a standard permit costs $10 and is good for 5 years. Yes TEN dollars, an enhanced is $100. The process is dead simple: go to your sheriff’s office, fill out application (two pages and can be done in under 5 minutes), return to sheriff’s office in one week (with $10) and pickup your temporary permit….about a week later your actual permit will arrive. The enhanced requires slightly more work (training, fingerprinting etc).

      The biggest benefit to having an actual permit vs constitutional is that you have reciprocity without confusion. The fear of many here (in South Dakota, not others sitting in front of their computer screens in hostile territory) is that by allowing constitutional carry, the regular permit would be removed and people who travel would have to get a an enhanced permit. South Dakota was an early advocate for recognizing everyone’s out of state permits, even those where no agreement existing (looking at you MN, wasn’t until last year that reciprocity existed with the loon state….but only with enhanced).

      • If it requires a permit, it’s not constitutional carry. Period. Open carry, concealed carry, doesn’t matter. I support their making permits available for reciprocity with states that require permits to travel outside the state, but don’t call it “constitutional carry” if you still have to have a permit to do so, regardless of how low the bar is to obtain one.

      • Federalist_46,

        First of all, it is inherently obscene on its face when you must obtain a permit/license from government before you can exercise an unalienable right.

        Second of all, having to make TWO trips to your local Sheriff to get a concealed carry permit is hardly trivial in terms of both time and expense. How many people have a 45 minute drive (one way) to their Sheriff office? That is 1.5 hours round trip, or three hours total for both round trips. How much does that cost in lost productivity for the applicant? What is the vehicle/mileage expense?

        Look at it this way. Suppose you wanted to send an e-mail to your Governor about a pending bill. What if you had to make two trips to your Sheriff office, pay $10 for a First Amendment permit, wait one week for your temporary First Amendment permit, and miss three hours of work before you could get your First Amendment permit and send that e-mail?

        • uncommon_sense

          I agree with you that we should have to ask permission to use our rights. However what good is having a right if I can only exercise my right within the boundaries of my state. This is South Dakota, you have great limitations due to its rural nature and it is not uncommon to travel to Minneapolis or Omaha for shopping (both of which are places I prefer to be carrying in).

          ON your second point. My example of the two trips is for Minnehaha County (the largest and most liberal in the state). In most of the surrounding counties the permits are issued on the spot. The second trip is only necessary in Minnehaha if this is your initial permit and want to start carrying before your card arrives in the mail. Living in SD, one expects to spend a lot of time driving so a trip to the county seat twice over 5 years is not out of the question. We are so spread out the speed limits are 65 on highways and 80 on interstate and kids get drivers licenses at 14.

          I agree payment for rights is ludicrous, but was making a point in response to PeterK who indicates the current process discriminates against the poor. Even as a broke college student, I could scrape together 10 bucks. Our culture is just different across the state, while I appreciate the legislature’s goal of pushing the second amendment rights….one has to ask themselves is it worth it to give up a minor inconvenience of a $10 fee (plus drive) and essentially giving up the right to use the same write anywhere else. Now if surrounding states had constitutional carry I’d be all for it….but they are not even discussing it.

    • Don’t know if the fees are set by statute, but if he sent it back with a request to have the legislature lower the cost to zero, I might have bought his statement as good faith. But, yeah, I just see a reluctance to give up that sweet, sweet, revenue.

  7. 1.) Nathan Deal (Georgia) >> Campus Carry and another bill that removed the flat prohibition on place of workship if no sign posted (HB 1060)
    2.) Jan Brewer (Arizona) >> Campus Carry and storage locker bill multiple times
    3.) Gary R. Herbert (Utah) >> Constitutional carry multiple times
    4.) Dennis Daugaard (South Dakota) >> Constitutional carry and lowering off places for enhanced permit holder
    5.) Joe Straus (Texas) >> Anti Gun Extremist / house speaker who refused long time good bills as open carry to come up for vote
    6.) Miguel Díaz de la Portilla (Florida) >> Anti Gun Extremist / was leader in judicary commite and blockt any good pro gun bill
    7.) Anitere Flores (Florida) in the chamber the anti gun bitch is the problem to get the 5-4 votes : (

    Anti Gun Democrats white an good nra joke rating

    1.) Brian Schweitzer (Montana) = Constitutional carry and local prempt banks and parks + others multiple times
    2.) Steve Bullock (Montana) = Campus Carry, Knife Preemption + remove the 4 Inch Blade Limit, in first attemption suppressor hunting
    3.) Earl Ray Tomblin (WV) = Constitutional carry
    4.) Jay Nixon (Missouri) = Constitunal carry light (locals can still bann unlicensed open carry and the off place list is extrem big)

    Ratings means nothing

    In my rating only people as sam brownback, phil bryant ore Robert J. Bentley get an A/A+ (no vetoes found)

  8. WV Dem Gov. vetoed our Constitutional Carry Law and we had the numbers to override it here with a simple majority , numbers we haven’t had in almost a century . God bless WV and the first Conservative Congress in a very long time .

Leave a Reply

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