“Each year, locally-elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history,” South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard wrote in his veto statement, after shooting down the Mount Rushmore state’s effort to enact constitutional carry (no specific license required for concealed carry).”Under this bill, those who are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon would no longer be informed of that fact.” Huh? Governor Daugaard reckons House Bill 1248 was a problem because those who aren’t allowed to carry don’t/won’t know that they aren’t? They need to be informed of the fact? According to guns.com, Daugaard had another reason for turning his back on his consituents’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms . . .
Daugaard also said that the bill would complicate police procedure, as it would still be illegal for one to possess a concealed firearm if he/she had a troubled history. Therefore, he argued, situations could arise where individuals carrying concealed are detained while police look into their backgrounds to make sure they’re lawful residents.
Huh? It’s late. Can someone explain this to me?