Posted on 03/23/2017 6:03:21 AM PDT by marktwain
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.
From 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.
I respectfully return to you House Bill 1156, with 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.
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.
AZ has Constitutional Carry; no problems yet.
Even Oregon allows carrying into the capitol. If there were a terror attack on the legislature, I’m sure the police would appreciate having extra hands on deck to deal with the situation.
P.O.S. Jerk. How soon before South Dakotans get the opportunity to veto HIM?
Governor Daugaard is term limited out.
Both SD House and Senate have a Republican Super-majority. Seemingly they could override veto as was done in Missouri.
“As an example of a lawful limitation Justice Scalia states that “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment….””
vs
“South Dakota already has open carry without a license.”
So the nuance here is is open carry is unrestricted, but concealed carry is licensed.
In the early days of RKBA, concealing a weapon was socially considered prima face evidence of criminal intent. Licensing CCW would be a way of demonstrating lawful intentions by notifying the state ahead of time, and having paperwork presentable on demand should the concealed weapon be discovered and considered suspicious. Unfortunately, this is viably supported by the governor’s observation that 600 applications were denied for presumably good reason over a fairly small time & space; he of course then fails to note how many of those 600 proceeded to CCW anyway, leaving the harassed parties being the upstanding citizens who needed to CCW but knew they’d either be denied (so why bother; crushing the governor’s claim of nobody having been improperly denied) or not licensed in time.
The difficulty is that SD is a very cold state, making unwitting concealment common as one simply puts on a jacket. Then there’s the normal issue of unexpectedly needing discrete carry, faced with committing a harmless infraction vs scaring the natives.
Someone needs to get on the issue of those denied not caring and proceeding to CCW anyway - and also those being approved who should’t (I know of a case where a known coke-head applied for a NY CCW just for the he11 of it, and was shocked that he actually was approved; worse, the judge who approved my first CCW permit and stamped it “for recreational use only” was removed from the bench for cocaine trafficking).
There were no laws against concealed carry that withstood court review until 40 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
There were many concealable weapons available. Daggers and Dirks had always been available. “Muff pistols” became numerous during the reign of Queen Anne, from 1702 to 1714.
In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Then laws against the carrying of concealed weapons started to proliferate.
For the last 6 years my wifey has been a contract helicopter operator for the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, using the FLIR gear and video recording equipment aboard her bird to spot woodland forest fires. When the Governor announced his planned veto, her response was that if he did, she'd pull her operation out of the state within 30 days.
It helps that my property in Wyoming is within a half-mile of the SD state line. No more SD state gov't airport tiedown fees or fuel taxes. No more SD license plates on her truck or bikes. No more helo immediately available to the County Sheriff for Search & Rescue.
We'll see how long it takes her.
For the last 6 years my wifey has been a contract helicopter operator for the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, using the FLIR gear and video recording equipment aboard her bird to spot woodland forest fires. When the Governor announced his planned veto, her response was that if he did, she'd pull her operation out of the state within 30 days.
It helps that my property in Wyoming is within a half-mile of the SD state line. No more SD state gov't airport tiedown fees or fuel taxes. No more SD license plates on her truck or bikes. No more helo immediately available to the County Sheriff for Search & Rescue.
We'll see how long it takes her.
When thinking about the gov’t, I like to keep in mind the quote below, a general comment from Mike Adams (Natural News):
“Every government in the world today is founded on a “big lie” that you’re about to see explained below. This is true regardless of party affiliation, nationality or era in which the government operates. All governments — past, present, and future — are founded on this “big lie,” without exception.
What is this BIG LIE? It’s the idea that those who are in power will represent the interests of others who have no power.
This “big lie” fantasizes that selfish, power-seeking, egoistic human beings are magically transmuted into humble, compassionate, ethical “representatives” the minute they win an election. We are to believe that all their hunger for power instantly vanishes at the moment they win, replaced by God-like universal love for all the people, even at the expense of their own careers or personal wealth accumulation.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.