Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

South Dakota already has open carry without a license.
1 posted on 03/23/2017 6:03:21 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: marktwain

AZ has Constitutional Carry; no problems yet.


2 posted on 03/23/2017 6:12:48 AM PDT by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

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.


3 posted on 03/23/2017 6:25:28 AM PDT by Twotone (Truth is hate to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

P.O.S. Jerk. How soon before South Dakotans get the opportunity to veto HIM?


4 posted on 03/23/2017 6:27:31 AM PDT by Kalamata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

Both SD House and Senate have a Republican Super-majority. Seemingly they could override veto as was done in Missouri.


6 posted on 03/23/2017 6:35:31 AM PDT by donozark (Lock HER up! Lock HIM up! Kick 'em out! Build the wall! GO TRUMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

“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).


7 posted on 03/23/2017 6:36:26 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Understand the Left: "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson