“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?
It’s late. Can someone explain this to me?
Sure. Daugaard is a tool.
No need to thank me.
+1
Idk Ralph, tools are generally useful in fulfilling tasks. Like loosening bolts.
I would call him a pile of shit, but piles of shit can be used as fertilizer and to grow mushrooms. so maybe it’s best to just call him scum. Can’t do much with scum besides get rid of it.
It makes as much sense as banning guns from and establishment.
Embarrassed to be from the great state of South Dakota
Makes no sense. Deny the law-abiding over something that prohibited folks do anyway.
Bingo! In SD you have only those rights criminals will not abuse.
Meh. Didn’t I see somewhere that it is likely the state legislature will overturn his veto…
The state Senate vote was two shy of being veto-proof. It looks like Con Carry is dead in SD until the state gets an actual Governor.
So asinine. “We must protect them from themselves!”
People who cared enough to know if they were prohibited would be the same people who would check to make sure before they carried.
People who didn’t give enough of a damn to check are likely the same people who would carry even if they knew they were prohibited.
I was always taught that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and this seems to run directly counter to that. “Don’t worry about understanding the minutiae, we’ll make sure you’re covered.” Until we won’t.
Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority.
William Jennings Bryan
Every true thing was first believed by one person, then by six, then by 50,000, then by everybody except the idiot next door.
At least now we know where the idiot lives — in the Governor’s mansion.
You should ask guns.com to explain. Was there a link? Did the gov. really say that?
They’re lying mike, obviously. We always get away with lying because the media and everybody else is on our side.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha … Ha!
Good one.
Disarming a citizen who hasn’t given up their legal right to carry while not affecting criminals one whit?! I can’t believe a politician would do such a thing…
Doesnt SD have shall issue concealed carry? Is this really a big deal?
Yes, it is. Any permit/license system turns a right into a priviledge. See the problem, now?
Problem? I guess. I just dont see it as a huge issue. I understand the principle behind it, i just dont think its worth getting worked up over. Hell, ive lived in a shall issue state my whole life and ive never felt to put upon.
I live in a shall issue state and I DO feel too put upon.
I feel put upon because I have to pay to take another class every 10 years. (apparently, I’m expected to get stupider with age or the basics of safe firearm handling have changed since I first took hunter safety when I was 10).
I feel put upon because I have to fill out an application, and pay a fee for a background check and a processing fee to the county (each of which are more than double what I pay my FFL to do essentially the same paperwork).
Yes, I have a problem with paying fees and paying for and taking classes to exercise my rights and, yes, I have a problem with poll taxes too.
Then, and this is the real kicker for me, I have to haul myself into the county sheriff’s office to be interviewed and fingerprinted – apparently the very fact that I wish to exercise my constitutional right requires me to be treated like a common criminal.
So, while my state is indeed “shall issue” I have to do a lot of things that certainly do make me feel put upon. I’m pretty sure there is no other constitutionally protected right that before I can exercise it I am required, at my own expense, to: Gain and show proof of education, submit to a background check, and have my personal data recorded by law enforcement.
“I understand the principle behind it, i just dont think its worth getting worked up over.”
—–
Funny thing about that: this principle is one of the forces that started the revolution. The battles at Lexington and Concord took place because British troops were sent to disarm the colonists there. Lucky for us, a bunch of folks DID think it was worth getting worked up over.
What we did in Arizona was eliminate the permit requirement – “constitutional carry” – and increase the punishment for criminal possession of a weapon. For instance, a criminal that committed a crime (“in the furtherance of a serious, violent or felony crime”) and was in possession of a concealed firearm would only have faced a misdemeanor, which invariably, would be dismissed to focus prosecution on the more serious offense (possession of a weapon in the commission of a crime also carries a 7 year sentence enhancement), now they face an additional felony.
I would urge the legislative sponsor of the South Dakota bill to take a look at Arizona’s statute and perhaps borrow from it’s provisions to mute the Governor’s concerns. Reference A.R.S. 13-3102
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
Why should a crime be made more illegaler because the criminal has a weapon? A person is just as robbed whether or not the robber has a gun.
Henry Bowman, the sentence enhancement is meant to do two things: be a deterrent, and keep undeterred dangerous people away for longer. I’m very much in favor of enhancements.
I don’t know Ralph. So that we can figure out a way to incarcerate even more than the present 1/4 of the world’s prison population?
Enhancements are a prosecutor’s trick to convict people they have a weak case against. They tack on charge after charge hoping something will stick. That way, they can claim they are “tough on crime”. I am very much against “enhancements”.
I live in South Dakota (in Rapid City, to be specific) and I have to say… I support the governor. We have about the easiest CCW to get. You go to the Sherriff’s office and hand over a driver’s license. They run your name through the state records, while you wait. If nothing comes back, you pay $10 and they hand you a receipt which is a temporary CCW until your laminated CCW comes in the mail two weeks later.
Now, the problems with constitutional carry that I see in SD. We have a terrible problem with alcohol abuse, and habitual drunkenness will make you a prohibited person. With that comes a lot of domestic violence and restraining orders. To complicate matters, CCW is not good on tribal land. Keeping the permit in place, especially since it is so easy to get, is reasonable.
Sounds more like an alcohol abuse problem than a constitutional carry problem. And since tribal lands are treated as somewhat “sovereign” nations, I can’t really have a beef about that.
The problem I have with carry permits is that no government agency has Constitutional authority to force me to obtain permission to excercize my right to keep an BEAR arms that the USSC has ruled is as much a Constitutionally protected right as free speech, free press, etc. I don’t have to pay hundreds of $ to a state agency before I can use my free speech rights or my right to practice the religion of my choice, and the RKBA is as basic and as Constitutionally protected (in theory at least) as any of the other nine. If states and municipalities can override the 2nd A with impunity, and they all do to some extent, what’s to stop them from overriding all of the other 9? The 2nd is the most important of the 10 because it was intended to protect the other 9 from an oppressive government.