Progress: South Dakota Became the 14th Constitutional Carry State Today

south dakota constitutional carry bill signing

courtesy AP/James Nord

In 2017, former South Dakota governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed a constitutional carry bill that made it to his desk. Governor Daugaard said he was a big supporter of Second Amendment rights, but as he wrote in his veto message a the time . . .

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.

As a famous man once said, elections have consequences. And in November, Kristi Noem was elected to the top office in the Mount Rushmore State. Because of that . . .

South Dakotans will be able to carry concealed handguns without a permit beginning July 1.

Less than a month into office, Gov. Kristi Noem fulfilled one of her campaign promises on Thursday by signing the bill repealing the requirement into law.

She said she was “proud” that it was the first bill she signed as governor. Republican legislators who championed the bills stood in a crowd behind her as she signed the bill at a desk in the Capitol Rotunda, applauding after her signature turned it into law.

She even produced this little video to commemorate signing her first bill into law:

South Dakota now joins Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (residents only) Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only), in the club of states that allow permitless carry of firearms.

This (bill) was a significant piece of legislation that had been worked on for years, and I’ve always believed in defending our constitutional rights,” Noem said. “So this was a special one to me to be able to have as my first bill I signed into law.”

We couldn’t have put it any better ourselves.

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    While we can put this in the “win” column I wouldn’t spend much time popping champagne.

    SD doesn’t have a large population, it’s in flyover country and because of these two things this story will get zero traction in the MSM. For 95% of Americans this didn’t happen.

    Kind of reminds me of Snatch.

    Doug the Head: “We’ve got sandy beaches”

    Cousin Avi: “So? Who the fuck wants to see ’em?”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “SD doesn’t have a large population, it’s in flyover country and because of these two things this story will get zero traction in the MSM. For 95% of Americans this didn’t happen.”

      Big “W”, small “w” a win is a win. Now, if only we had a nationally recognized 500lb gorilla(not “guerilla”) of an organization supporting the second amendment that could spend the money advertising across the spectrum. Maybe then the message could get out, despite the MSM?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Now, if only we had a nationally recognized 500lb gorilla(not “guerilla”) of an organization supporting the second amendment that could spend the money advertising across the spectrum. Maybe then the message could get out, despite the MSM?”

        Indeed.

        1. avatar Russ says:

          The NRA is doing exactly what you two sarcastically ask for.
          You would know this if you were actually involved.
          Of course you’re not going to hear about their advancement, if your news source is MSM Faked Propaganda!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The NRA is doing exactly what you two sarcastically ask for.”

          Could you supply a few public examples? I read four news feeds (all non-liberal) per day, and haven’t seen anything of the kind. No statements, no advertisement/public service announcements, nothing on Fox News. If NRA is talking only internally, it is of little use to non-members (the potential pool of new members), nothing about lobbying efforts using this latest win effectively.

          And, BTW, nothing about NRA seeking alliances with conservative, pro-2A billionaires who can counter the influence of billionaires on the Left. In the middle of a cold civil war, NRA seems (like the Republicrat establishment) to be bent on quiet desperation as the message of choice.

        3. avatar D. N. says:

          @ Sam, your comment shows total ignorance. NRA does place spokespeople. They are out there all the time. They sure as heck are out there on Fox etc.

          The mainstream media can largely avoid the NRA by instead of using advocacy organization people from “both sides”, go with ‘”academic experts” instead. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPost etc can have academic experts (eg on public heath aspects, medical experts from Harvard Injury, Bloomberg school at Johns Hopkins; and on legal issues rps from say Brennan Center) and not have to give equal air to NRA.

          That is the problem with non-paid. On paid media, (‘advertising”), do you expect the NRA to be spending tens of millions advertising? National paid advertising costs a fortune. And to fight gun control groups that way, when they have about a 10:1 advantage in that type of money is crazy, it would bankrupt the NRA in a year. Are you forgetting that because or the way the issue is, and the way the IRS and FEC rules are, pro gun control advocacy can be done charitably, ie 501(c3), while the NRA, GOA etc have to fight that with non charitable raised funds?

          Lastly NRA and GOA are not top down billionaire driven efforts like their 30 gun control advocacy adversaries are. What do you think meetings of Everytown are like? It is 20 board members getting instructions from one or two major donors. NRA, GOA, SAF etc are nothing like that at all. Second Amendment advocacy groups are hampered by the fact that they are actually grassroots membership groups. How many dues paying members does Everytown have? About 400 in the country. NRA has to answer to millions all with different opinions

          The fact is NRA’s membership rose the last two years, but its outside large funding decreased — as did GOA and SAF outside funding decrease. Billionaires are not going to support the NRA or GOA — they are not set up for them too.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Billionaires are not going to support the NRA or GOA — they are not set up for them too.”

          Interesting that NRA can find no means of rallying zillionaires to the pro-2A cause, not even as paid advertising celebrities. What I see is NRA stuck in “business as usual” dynamics (much like the Republicrats”). And we see how well that has worked out in the past.

          Still haven’t seen anything from NRA about the SD constitutional carry, not even Fox News.

          Here is what I would do as whoever top dog in NRA is: announce that NRA is supporting, via funds and fund raising, every law suit against gun control laws, sharing resources and funding with other pro-2A organizations in efforts to gain public recognition of the failure of anti-gun laws to protect anyone – and to support those other pro-2A organizations with publicity, rallies, political campaigns for pro-2A candidates. I would put on notice every anti-gun organization that to date, they have fought and feared a legend, a myth as regards the power of the NRA. As of today, they face an activist, fearsome, committed, legal and political giant on a rampage to neutralize the effect of anti-gun organizations, and the repeal of every gun law since 1900. That sort of stance would gain my active and financial commitment (meaning, I would put my name on a list).

          And if all that did not drive membership in NRA and other pro-2A organization numbers off the charts, well, the game is up and delay is the best we can do.

        5. avatar NB says:

          “Interesting that NRA can find no means of rallying zillionaires to the pro-2A cause, not even as paid advertising celebrities.”

          Interesting you are dumb as a post moron and dont bother to research.

          1) NRA is not a 501c3 genious. There are two 501c3 gun control “charitable” organizations looking into NRA financing full time, “The Trace” and “Gunsdownamerica.” Give a million to them and you get a $500,000 tax deduction. Of the 450 million given to gun control groups every year, almost all of it is tax deductible.

          That is why they have billionaires — and those billionaires make all the decisions on positions, policy etc.

          NRA is a dues paying MEMBERSHIP group it is NOT a 501c3 charity, Money given to NRA is NOT tax deductible, hence no large donations.

          But keep making idiotic statements.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Interesting you are dumb as a post moron and dont bother to research.”

          Feel better? Superior? Manly? It’s all about feelz, isn’t it?

          I know NRA is not tax-exempt. The comparison was merely to point out that sometimes Affinity organizations are no more altruistic than some non-profits. That maintaining a comfort zone is more important than the original mission. The inescapable fact is that with 100 million gun owners, and 5 million NRA members indicates an organization who is not focused on the mission. If you are selling a product, and you have what should be a highly welcoming market, and after all these years your gross sales is only 5%, something is missing.

          As to billionaires, they don’t “own” all the organizations they support. 2A-supporting zillionaires can heavily support, endorse and advertise their recipients quite handily without “calling all the shots”.

          NRA is lazy, comfortable, and satisfied with where they are, else they would be expanding their tool kit to attract a wider audience. Maybe NRA views itself more as a country club than a civil rights organization. And that would be perfectly fine, if they simply admitted they are a niche’ player, and not ardent advocates for repealing all gun control laws.

          I am a gun owner. I researched the entire history of the NRA. I do not see a clear pattern of strong advocacy for peeling back all the political and legislative infringements of/on an enumerated civil right. All I am asking for is the NRA end the back room non-sense and put direct and public pressure on any politician who supports any gun laws, anywhere. Right now the most powerful gun rights organization in the world continues to play the loser’s game of mitigation, not repeal. There are no declarations of supporting primary contenders against squish politicians. No threats to lobby against big donors supporting the squish politicians. No real leverage. The anti-gun mob is winning by claiming they are powerless before the NRA, when the outspend the NRA by orders of magnitude. The anti-gun mob is holding up a paper tiger as the root of all problems gun related. Time the NRA acted like the big gorilla in the room.

    2. avatar Frank in VA says:

      CNN covered it, with the required rebuttals from the usual suspects:

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/us/sd-concealed-carry-law-trnd/index.html

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’ll be interested to see if they give it any coverage in “prime time” on television.

        I have my doubts that it will get any coverage.

        If it does get coverage I suspect it will be about how the citizens of SD are rubes who have been taken advantage of and how this new law someone poses a danger to the good people of neighboring Minnesota who, as we all know, are far more educated in the ways of the world as evidenced by those they send to Washington.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Firearms freedom, like football, is a game of inches. This may not be a Big Play, but it does move the chains. Really, big gains are very rare, even when Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the White House, and the SC. There are always weak sisters in the party who never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity. Hence, no movement on national reciprocity or the hearing protection act in Trump’s first two years.

      By the way, if you’re still relying on the mainstream media to get your message out and to report on progress important to you, you’re wasting your time. We need to spread such news ourselves through every other means we can.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        At one time there was always,since 1791,one state,Vermont,that as the Constitution ,the way the founders intended,has had Constitutional carry/Vermont style carry,the old term for Constitutional carry.

        Then came Alaska and so on and so on,now up to 14 states,approximately 1/4 of the several states,a spreading return to the 2 nd. amendment as written.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Oklahoma should follow at some point this year. Utah will once they replace the jackass governor next election. Need to see Alabama, South Carolina, Nebraska, Iowa, etc. follow.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Oklahoma should follow at some point this year.”

          If that happens, we will be at 30 percent of the 50 states. With 14 states, we were at 28 percent. That’s a nice jump.

          We can also rightly claim political momentum is on our side for enhancing gun rights…

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Nonsense. That analogy requires relatively equal sides. The reality is that normalization through, among other things, indoctrination and simple laziness guarantees that the exercise of an unalienable individual right loses in the end. This overall only works one way; towards tyranny. History supports this. The writings of the founders of this nation support this. Your point of view flies in the face of all recorded human history and common sense itself.

        Playing a game of inches ensures that future generations will have even less exercise of individual liberty and a much more difficult time repairing the damage. Even technology works against the wholesale exercise of unalienable individual rights. Frankly, I’m saddened by the average Joe and Jane’s myopia.

        The solution? Each generation has a choice to restore it’s exercise of unalienable individual rights. It requires massive civil disobedience; staunchly refusing to back down. If that doesn’t work, it requires exactly what the founders of this nation faced. What isn’t a solution is counting on the butterfly effect, eating elephants, making sausage, or whatever other cute euphemism used for avoiding what truly needs done. When the work is avoided, future generations pay an ever increasing price.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The Court has declared that only belligerents have rights. They are telling y’all something.

          I’ve come to the conclusion that only people who aren’t fucking morons have rights. They need to be able to see the reality and do that which must be done. Being free is hard. Apply Occam’s Razor to the question. Which is more likely to be free; a population that hopes for an inch by inch restoration of their liberty or one that demands it and won’t back down until they have it? If the former was the correct answer, liberty would’ve been spontaneously springing up all over the place in recorded human history instead of in little pockets after drastic action on the part of groups of people. What one will find is that the longer a government exists, the more tyranny one sees. Hmm… I wonder why that is? Not! The exercise of unalienable individual rights is only possible through eternal vigilance and jealously guarding those rights. It doesn’t happen incrementally. Tyranny happens incrementally. Liberty simply doesn’t triumph through some Rube Goldberg incrementalism. Anyone spewing forth otherwise does a grave disservice to liberty.

          Just like an abused spouse hoping the he will someday treat her better, the People need to kick his ass or kick him to the curb. Do it before he kills you. He isn’t going to change, honey.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        “Firearms freedom, like football, is a game of inches.”

        “This overall only works one way; towards tyranny.”

        Both of these statements are untrue IMHO. Firearms freedom is not a game of inches it’s a game of advertising. It also doesn’t only work in one way. It goes in the direction of those who have the best advertising.

        In general we don’t have the better advertising. The reason for that is because advertising is a manipulation, or a form of control, that freedom minded people are uncomfortable with. Until we become comfortable, or at least somewhat willing, to “fight fire with fire” we’re rarely going to win.

        To expound on this just a bit (but not too much before this becomes TL:DR material):

        Advertising is extremely manipulative. You can find a lot of comments on TTAG about how a lot of anti-gun people fall victim to “emotion” or “feelz”. This is true. It’s also the root of what we need to get better at. We also need to keep in mind that, as I say regularly, you cannot reason someone out of a position they have emoted themselves into. I stole that exact phrase from someone but I don’t remember who.

        To get at this properly we need to understand a couple of things. First, advertising starts with emotion. Pure emotion. Emotion opens the door and makes us open to suggestion. That suggestion is facts, or fiction disguised as facts. This is the reason lots of people buy shit they can’t afford and don’t really need.

        Secondly, emotional arguments often appeal to our sense of control, or more correctly our need to feel that we’re in control. People who are depressed or feel their life is out of control often go shopping. Why? Because they get to make decisions and feel in control. Advertising replaces the actual control but leaves the feeling of control.

        If a salesman can “kick open the door” with emotion then they can pile a bunch of shit through that door that supports the emotional feeling. Our tendency towards confirmation bias makes us susceptible to things that might not be true but which support our original emotional feeling. Even if we kinda know the “facts” are bullshit we still like them because they support our feelings and therefore we are more likely to accept them at the time and make the purchase. Later on we might review the facts and find they’re lies which leads to “buyers remorse” but the sales guy doesn’t care about that because he got his sale.

        So, for an example take the Mitsubishi Eclipse-Cross. It has really odd adds that are just kinda funny but don’t really sell the car based on facts or logic. This works because it makes us laugh and laughing releases chemicals in our brain that make us feel better. Subconsciously we associate that good feeling with the car. This makes us more open to suggestions that the car is in fact something we want or need based on “facts” about it. Combined with a salesman who’s skillful at making us think we’re in control we buy the car.

        That’s exactly how some guy ends up in the driveway having an argument with his wife who says “We already have an SUV!” to which is says “But this one has symmetrical-all-wheel drive enhanced by pixie dust!” to which she says “Our other one has 4WD too! Why the hell did you buy this thing!?”.

        His arguments make little sense in the context of reality and she doesn’t get that because she wasn’t emotionally bated into this whole thing and then given a bunch of bullshit to prop up that feeling the way her husband was. She doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get why she doesn’t get it.

        And then the same thing happens the next week only it’s the wife defending some handbag she bought.

        For all the complaints about how psychology is nonsense, it’s not. Psychologists figured out how people work and sold that information to advertising companies who then sold the information to politicians.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          Strych, *please* consider my earlier request on expounding on these concepts in a series of articles…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Geoff,

          See my earlier reply to your earlier request.

          But do it earlier rather than later so that you can be the first, feel good about being first and allow me into manipulating you into giving me your money.

          Hurry, act now! Supplies are limited and discounts only available to special people like you who are super smart and quick like a cat and shit. Like YOU! First time customers also recieve an ounce of 99.999% pure bullshit and a signed copy of the book I’m totally going to write!

        3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          Wow.

          Look at that pic of a female chief exec, empowering the ever more female gun owners to protect themselves, without needing somebody’s approval or permission.

          This is how it should be, especially for women. Guns are a civil right — “equalizers” for the disempowered, when the power in place doesn’t work for them.

          Too bad it took so long to get this past the opposition.

          ?How’d I do?

      4. avatar James says:

        There are always weak sisters in the party who never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity. Hence, no movement on national reciprocity or the hearing protection act in Trump’s first two years.

        The number of imbecilic statements and disinformation on those bills, repeated among some gun owner, is staggering. Every Republican Senator supports those but the they will NOT get 60 votes as we don’t have 60 GOP Senators. The same babies whine and cry about “RINOs” when every “RINO” supported both bills.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Having been at this a tad longer than you, I can say you’re wrong.

      I remember the effect of mentioning Vermont’s lack of gun laws on debates in the early 90’s.

      Them: “If we don’t have laws to control guns, we’ll have blood in the streets!”

      Me: “You mean like Vermont?”

      Them: “What about Vermont?”

      Me: “Blood. In the streets. Like they have in Vermont.”

      Them: “There’s no blood in the streets in Vermont…”

      Me: “There aren’t any gun laws, either. You can buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street in Vermont.”

      Them: “You’re wrong, they’ve got gun laws…”

      Me: “Nope. Zip, nada, nothing. None of the gun laws you claim.”

      And I’d whip out verified facts about Vermont’s lack of gun laws – which most of these pols in California, Nevada, etc would hope that no one knew about. Most people would not know anything about any of this in public debates. So I brought up the facts…

      And doing so would completely derail a debate. Completely. Being able to hold up just one little state that has more cows than people. that is best known for fall foliage tours and producing maple syrup… that one little state’s lack of gun laws would utterly derail debates about gun legislation 25 years ago.

      So now, the debate can go like this:

      Them: “We need gun laws against (insert X here)!”

      Us: “Why? (rattle off list of states) seem to be getting along fine without them.”

      Them: “Because…. uh… because…”

      Us: “Ya gotta do better than that. Are you saying that the residents of your state aren’t as smart as all those people in (rattle off list of states)?”

      Them: To themselves: (shut the hell up, you gun-toting asshole… you keep bringing up these facts…)

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The issue isn’t that “you’re wrong”. It’s that the message of success never gets out because propaganda works two ways. One of those ways is by those in power/media simply refusing to report those facts which are inconvenient to their preferred narrative and thereby depriving the public of a full knowledge base with which to make decisions. You’ve seen the evidence for this and you say it outright: “Most people would not know anything about any of this in public debates.”

        The fact that you had to argue the way you did and point out unknown facts shows exactly what I’m talking about to be historically true.

        That’s the point and that’s why SD’s law isn’t, IMHO, some watershed moment to get excited about. Because that information isn’t going to go very far outside the gun world. SD is a win but it’s at best a first down inside our own territory. It’s not even close to a TD. I’ll take it but I’m not cracking open the champagne like we just made the playoffs, never mind won the Superbowl.

        You can bet quite safely that in a few years virtually no one in parts of the voting public which we need to win over will know about SD’s law change here. Gun folks will know but “fence sitters” who don’t pay attention to “gun news” won’t. You can also bet quite safely that if they do know the reason is going to be because crime in the Twin Cities or elsewhere in Minnesota fuels a narrative of another “Iron Pipeline” running from SD to Minnesota just like the one from Indiana to Chicago or from Virginia to NYC.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          Facts like “No blood in Vermont” are bad for mass media, but good for one on onee conversations where you’re having an honest debate. Hold yourself to be admirable — or fake it — with a different opinion, and someone who respects of admires you will listen, or even wonder, what’s behind your weird opinion.

          Mass persuasion is a whole different game.

          We need to play both.

  2. avatar m. says:

    how does feel, former governor a**hole?

    1. avatar m. says:

      …how does that feel, …

    2. avatar surlycmd says:

      He was term limited, not voted out.

      1. avatar m. says:

        too bad, still an a**hole

  3. avatar NORDNEG says:

    AWSOME…!

  4. avatar fteter says:

    Another incremental step in the right direction. Very cool.

  5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Permitless carry, no income taxes, and probably the hottest governor in the country. What’s not to like?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What’s not to like?”

      Not related to guns, but related to South Dakota.

      Once upon a time, what we call North and South Dakota were simply “Dakota Territory”. Having lived in one, and driven through the other, I wonder what was the point of two states. Maybe it was because Norwegian immigrants looking to settle in a place every bit as miserable as their homeland wanted what became North Dakota, while gold miners and freebooters wanted more moderate weather. But, I digress.

      Driving through S. Dakota, I came upon a town named “Mowbridge”. Yes, there seemed to be a remarkable number in, out and through Mowbridge. On the way out of town, I spotted two fishermen in a boat, with what looked like Fly gear, fishing in a large pond (too small to be a proper lake). The scene didn’t seem too unusual until I was directly across the road from the fishermen. At that point, I realized the two men were in a boat placed completely on the shore of the pond, casting lines into the pond. And me without a camera.

    2. avatar Bing Crosshair says:

      Finally!!! I thought I was the only one that noticed.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Eh, you should try living there for a little bit before you get all lathered up about the idea.

      When weather that’s little more than a nuisance goes by here in Wyoming, about 12 to 24 hours later, we’re hearing how it was hell on wheels in South Dakota. eg, a little thunderstorm goes by here, dropping a bit of hail. 12 hours later, we’re hearing how it dropped tornadoes, hail the size of your fist, etc on South Dakota. Winter storm drops a couple inches of powder here… tomorrow it shuts down half of South Dakota.

      I’ve known ranchers who came up from Texas, thinking they were going to buy up vast tracts of land in South Dakota because ranches were so cheap there. A year later, they were putting all of it on the market, because if they didn’t, their wives were going to leave them…

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Still, they don’t have the humidity we have in Iowa in the summer. And their winters will never be as bad as they are in North Dakota.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I remember a week in Iowa when the temp (not wind chill) never topped 0 all week, and another when the dew point never dropped below 80.

  6. avatar tmm says:

    That is non, non non heinous!!!

  7. avatar Scott C says:

    Oh no!!! There will be blood in the streets, it’ll be the Wild West, but think of the children!!! Or any other leftist argument you can think of. Please don’t tell me I actually need to spell out the sarc here.

    Texas needs to take note and sign our own constitutional carry bill already.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Oh no!!! There will be blood in the streets,”

      Well, a little late to the party. If you watched the TV series “Deadwood”, you would know that your fear was already in full blossom. Saw it with my own eyes. Nothing to see here; move along.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        You mentioned Deadwood and the thing that came to mind is Deadwood Pancakes.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You mentioned Deadwood and the thing that came to mind is Deadwood Pancakes.”

          Here ya’ go.

    2. avatar m. says:

      I told people in the TX legislature to pass it or go to hell. They will probably choose hell.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We don’t have a legislature until 2020, do we?

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        I think it was Gen. W.T. Sherman who said “If I owned hell and Texas, I’d rent out Texas and live in hell.”

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          It was General Philip Sheridan who supposedly said that.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It was General Philip Sheridan who supposedly said that.”

          Thought it was John Wayne.

    3. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      blood in the streets is nice. Gave my neighborhood a real Venice feel when AZ when constitutional carry all those years ago 😉

      of course i make this post from beyond the grave because 98% of the arizona population immediately died when the law went into effect

      1. avatar m. says:

        how did az manage c-carry with the dip-s**t governors they elect?

        1. avatar Mark H says:

          We got constitutional carry in AZ because the Democratic Governor (Napalitano) got a sweet Fed job and our wacky Pro-Gun Secretary of State (Brewer) moved up.

    4. avatar m. says:

      not happening, too many d-suckers down here

  8. avatar Alan says:

    As the former governor might have realized, actions can also have consequences.

  9. avatar possum says:

    .cool, another state that “allows” me to have a constitutional “righT”

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      How do Possums travel to constitutional carry states, anyways?

      I doubt you hitchhike, as many of your dead kinfolk I see on the side of the highway… 🙂

      1. avatar jwm says:

        They do hitch hike. They just ain’t very good at it. Tiny thumbs and looking like a rat on steroids doesn’t inspire a lot of folks to pick them up.

      2. avatar possum says:

        road rage murderr

  10. avatar Mad says:

    So does oregon.i don’t see that happening.we have some real Nancy pelosis running thing.at least we are a shall issue state

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Having completed all the requirements, I am waiting for my Texas concealed handgun license. I do not concur with the idea of everyone being allowed to carry concealed. Competency testing, classwork and a background check should be required to carry concealed. Open carry, on the other hand, is asking for trouble.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      So only a few special people who have money and can jump through all the hoops should be allowed to exercise a constitutional right?

    2. avatar Big E says:

      I feel the same way about the first amendment- so please don’t post or speak your mind anymore until you’ve met the arbitrary qualifications I’ve decided upon, ok?

  12. avatar Ing says:

    Nice!

    Even with the recent voter stupidity in WA, it strikes me that this is how the USA was always meant to operate — each state doing what suits its own populace.

    So even if my current state of residence goes full progtard, there are at least 14 others I could move to (in theory…if I had the means) where the laws and the general populace accord with my notions of liberty.

  13. avatar Datahut says:

    You’re all missing the point. With all the jabber and ‘analysis’ we TTAG commenters do (hoping for a big bucks break in urinalism like ‘Joe the Whatever’ perhaps) no one here has mentioned how hot this governor is. Debilitating political correctness at work or you guys just losing it? If the story made CNN, that’s what they noticed too. My $0.02 says the first woman President will be a Republican.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      She’s nice, no doubt.

      But Nikki Haley was pretty hot as South Carolina Governor…

    2. avatar possum says:

      . evidently you’ve not seen the Hilorally Clinton Limited Edition Swimsuit® calandeR.i just can’t keep my tail out of the gun hole after looking at iT

  14. avatar CZJay says:

    I wouldn’t count “resident only” states as constitutional carry.

    1. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      Those states all have Constitutions…. Or did you miss that? They have aligned their States with the Federal Constitution, thereby reinforcing YOUR right in THEIR States. Only 36 more to go! States that is….

    2. avatar Enuf says:

      It’s a half step in those states. They do need to do better. The U.S. Constitution is for all persons no matter if they happen to be within the state of their birth, or of their current residence, or just passing thru.

  15. avatar Shire-man says:

    ME and NH are going to try and reverse permitless carry. Sununu is likely to veto but ME is primed to let it happen.

    1. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      Stupid is contagious….. therefore any practitioners thereof should be QUARANTEENED, I think Gitmo would be a good place. Escapees could see what happens when you go far enough down that road.

  16. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Hurrah! DON’T think that would happen in a “Militant Socialist Utipoan Authoritarian Police-state” like say M-Assachusetts, MD., NY., CT., etc….

    1. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      You should check into how many NYers complied with their “bans” on mags etc. And also in NJ. When NJ banned highcap mags (>10) the law went into effect and they had TWO turned in the first month??? Really successful. People DO REFUSE to OBEY when legislators EXCEED their authority…. and it’s growing.

      1. avatar Enuf says:

        I’ve read about that. It is a hopeful sign that people are saying no to all this stupid shit.

    2. avatar Enuf says:

      They are not remotely Socialist. There is not a whiff of Maxist, Leninist, Engles’ist crapola in them. They are simply wrong headed, delusional as to the causes of bad things happening, and of the things good people can do to change that reality. In a nutshell, where the cause of human violence is concerned, those people just have their head’s up their asses.

      It is important to understand the nature your opposition.

  17. avatar Mikial says:

    SD’s an awesome place. Custer State Park, the Black Hills, the Badlands. A beautiful state and one I’d be proud to live in . . . especially after this bill was signed into law.

  18. avatar Enuf says:

    Pleased to see it. Hope it continues and hope the Supreme Court and lesser Federal courts begin reinforcing the natural right of self defense. Not very confident of that standing the test of time myself, the long term view is not favorable.

  19. avatar Arizona Free says:

    To all LE in S.D. take a deep breath and relax. This goes for any visitors from Cali. as well. Bullets won’t be flying through windows people won’t be laying down covering fire when changing lanes. In AZ. our police and sheriff dept don’t stop people to check your I’d just because you open carry. It’s been said many times but an armed society is a polite society. It’s true.

  20. avatar Minuteman says:

    Funniest part about all this is New York City residents can’t even take their pistols to these states as its illegal to remove em from the city. Poor Bastards! I guess when you move you can’t even take em with you. The city wants its guns to remain there.

  21. avatar James W Crawford says:

    I see that South Dakota is challenging Alaska’s claim as the coldest state with the hottest Governor.

    1. avatar Sal Chichon says:

      No shit, right?!

  22. avatar James says:

    Dan. What the heck? The article implies, and clearly as a result, most of the commentators have been led to believe, that the prior governor lost due to this issue.

    The guy was term limited.

    1. avatar m. says:

      just another a**hole who should not have been elected, like taqiyya-bama

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The article implies, and clearly as a result, most of the commentators have been led to believe, that the prior governor lost due to this issue.”

      Wow. I had not reached the conclusion about a political loss. Maybe speed reading isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email