South Dakota: Constitutional Carry Passes Senate Committee

The South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee passed the current “permitless” or Constitutional carry bill, HB 1072. The next stop for the bill: the full Senate. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives on February 23. From

House Bill 1072 passed the state House of Representatives last Thursday by a vote of 37 to 30.

In South Dakota, no state permits are required to possess a gun. According to the South Dakota Firearm Laws, “A person does not need a permit to own a pistol, keep it in his home, business, or property, or visibly carry it.”

A permit is currently required, however, to carry a firearm hidden by a coat or in a purse. Concealed carry permits can be obtained from the sheriff in the county a resident lives in.

Supporters of the bill say it’s a Constitutional right to carry a gun even if concealed, while those opposed believe it provides too much freedom and could pose a safety risk.

At the end of February, 2017, South Dakota has 92,850 active carry permits. From

At the end of February, there were 92,850 active regular and enhanced permits in South Dakota, according to the Secretary of State’s office. In 2016, 1,460 new enhanced permits were issued.

South Dakota has a population of 868,799 in early 2017. Permit holders are about 10.7 percent of the total population, and over 25 percent of the number of people who voted in 2016.

Constitutional or “permitless” carry will likely pass the South Dakota Senate. The Senate has 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats. And now the bad news: Governor Dennis Daugaard has promised to veto the bill.

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


  1. avatar Guns&Beer says:

    We in the rest of the USA want to know if the HPA has passed yet.

  2. avatar Adam says:

    You know you have a problem when people are concerned with others having “too much freedom”.

    1. avatar Vanbulance says:

      Really glad I wasn’t the only to notice that.

  3. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    What about California? Or Illinois? Or Texas for that matter?

    Nobody cares about South Dakota.

    1. avatar 2A FTW says:

      I’ve been to South Dakota. There are no hot girls there.

    2. avatar Carrucan says:

      “That’s right, Hillary. Don’t worry about South Dakota. Wisconsin? Pffft…You can skip worrying about that state too. Gun control? The number of flyover states adopting Constitutional Carry policies is unimportant. Let’s focus on ensuring the citizens of California, Texas, and Illinois can’t carry and not worry about the rest of the country. That’s a camel that will never get its nose under a tent flap in our administration.”

    3. avatar Guardiano says:

      You’re a weird dude.

  4. avatar Libertarian says:

    Hope it s enough time for override the rhino to do the same as in west verginia and missouri

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was wondering the same. With the bill passing the house by a vote of 37 to 30, it doesn’t sound like they have enough votes to override their Governor’s veto, assuming that they even have such an option.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    Nice for them. Meanwhile the people in democratic party controlled states get nothing. Unless the SCOTUS takes a bunch of 2a cases we are looking at micro restrictions on everything. Even a CCW permit doesn’t mean much if you’re not able to cart in 20 different places.

    1. avatar Marco says:

      Sorry to break it to you, but Gorsuch won’t help. Even if he’s as staunch a 2nd amendment guy as Scalia (we will see), SCOTUS DENIED cert on Jackson v. SF- as close to a “compliant” Heller-restriction as possible, and Friedman v. Highland park- where a judge actually wrote if a populace feels safer that’s a substantial enough good to ban “assault weapons”. And yes, it wasn’t for procedural issues- Scalia and Thomas wrote dissents of denial.

      The gun news is doing a very poor job of pointing out the Heller 5 was dead LONG before Scalia, and practically dead the minute the ink was dry on McDonald. Your guess is as good as mine, but the silence from SCOTUS, including on Drake, Woolard, and other carry cases that came in the wake of McDonald is deafening.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


        My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear those 2nd Amendment cases because they did not have enough justices Kennedy on-board. So, rather than put precedents on the books that weaken our right across the entire country, the Supreme Court punted — which was the right thing to do however disfunctional it was.

        If the Senate confirms Gorsuch and he supports the 2nd Amendment like the late Justice Scalia, that still will not be enough. Unfortunately, we will have to wait for a justice who opposes the 2nd Amendment to leave office and a 2nd Amendment supporter to take his/her place.

        1. avatar Julius Corrino says:

          Kennedy is rumoured to retire this summer.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Julius Corrino,

          Kennedy retiring this Summer would be outstanding … assuming that Trump manages to appoint (and the Senate confirms) a pro-Second Amendment justice to replace him.

          A pro-Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court would be a watershed moment in our nation’s history.

          Now, if only Ginsburg would leave the bench as well in the next two years, I wouldn’t even know how to begin celebrating.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


        Also of note … I believe Scalia watered down the Heller decision in order to get Kennedy’s vote.

        So, at this point, we are waiting for Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy to leave the bench … without losing Roberts, Thomas, Alito, or (presumably) Gorsuch.

  6. avatar Guardiano says:

    What will this be, number 13 for the Constitutional Carry club?

  7. avatar Libertarian says:

    11 you can t count idaho and wyoming in my view so long the residents discrimination exist
    If you count more restricitive open carry then missouri must exept too

  8. avatar BLoving says:

    I was going to get sarcastic with a comment on blood in the streets, but that population figure caught my eye:
    Yes, South Dakota only has 868,799 people. So assuming that they were all shot simultaneously (it was one hell of a block party), and then further assuming they each have the average of 1.2 – 1.5 gallons of blood each and bled out completely, that works out to a
    total of 1042558 – 1303198 gallons of blood in the streets or just enough to fill an olympic-sized swimming pool… once.
    Not much of a flood, really.

  9. avatar Sgt. Schultz says:

    Yeah but our jackwagon of a RINO governor already said that he’d veto it.

    1. avatar Guardiano says:

      I don’t get it, why? What’s the political expediency? Does he figure Republicans will vote for him again because of the R, and some Dems will cross over because he vetoed the blood in the streets bill?

      Even Tom Wolf, our very Democratic governor in PA, didn’t bother to veto the semi-auto hunting ban repeal bill, because he knows it’s a losing issue. Why does your governor believe this bill is a good hill to die on?

  10. avatar Sgt. Schultz says:

    Because he is in his last term due to term limits. Dennis Daugaard is his name. His position on this is that if anyone wishes to carry concealed that they should get a permit.Granted per capita we do have a high permit rate, but as far as I’m concerned our 2nd amendment rights don’t need permits.

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