Posted on 02/29/2012 8:13:36 AM PST by marktwain
PIERRE — State senators gave final legislative approval today to a major change in South Dakota’s concealed weapon laws: Adults wouldn’t need to apply for a permit anymore.
The measure instead would require only that a person be at least age 18, have a South Dakota driver license and otherwise be eligible under existing state law.
The Senate voted 22-11 to send the legislation to Gov. Dennis Daugaard for his decision whether to sign it into law.
Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, was prime sponsor of the measure, House Bill 1248. It initially won approval from the House of Representatives 50-18 two weeks ago, and Sen. Larry Rhoden led the Senate debate for its passage today.
He said South Dakota’s law requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is a restriction of the Second Amendment rights guaranteed through the U.S. constitution and the state constitution.
“I respond: When in doubt, give us our rights,” Rhoden, R-Union Center, said in rebutting the questions from opponents.
South Dakota police chiefs and sheriffs associations opposed the bill, according to Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City. He is a retired law enforcement officer.
He cited a variety of statistics statewide and for Pennington County that showed eight to 15 percent of permit applications were denied annually in the last five years. He asked what the problem was with the current system.
Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell, said he checked with his local police chief and sheriff who “really felt this was the wrong way to go.”
We have not seen any problems in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming.
We have not seen any problems in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming.
But, but, but. What is understandable is the number of RINO’s reigning in the SD legislature. Many of the most vociferous opponents of the second amendment are ex police officers, however most of those were senior management.
I am absolutely amazed this bill made it to passage. It still has to get through the governor’s office. The CC permit will still be available as that is necessary for inter state reciprocity.
It is starting to feel like 1995 again...more and more states going from may carry to shall carry, to constitutional carry....definately the right direction.
I like the moving towards constitutional carry but wonder why having a driver's license is a requirement?
A easy way to validate who is buying the gun? Their age etc? It would be a pain in the butt to find your birth certificate every time you want to buy adult age items (cigarettes, guns etc)
Incremental progress toward restoring our constitutional rights requires some legislative compromises.
Someone may have said: Yes, we can trust South Dakotans, but what about those idiots from the District of Columbia, California, New York, or New Jersey?
Then they put in the requirement for a South Dakota drivers license to get it passed.
As usual, the police are against it.
And they wonder why citizens don’t trust them.
Nice!
Hopefully the article's author meant to say "state identification" and I'm just nit-picking
This should be a non-issue. The SD Constitution says, in Article 6, section 24:
Right to bear arms. — The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
This is quite different from NM’s Constitution which says “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Or TN’s which says, in Art I, Sec 26: “That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
>Many of the most vociferous opponents of the second amendment are ex police officers, however most of those were senior management.
I believe that this is a de facto conspiracy; that is, seeing how the police are generally trained to just follow orders*, all that is required to put into place a police force that will fire upon or deny the people of their rights is the upper management to have such policies in-place until it becomes Standard Operating Procedure.
* — The classic example is the officer’s general unwillingness to consider what the law actually says. For example, when I point out that the NM State Constitution prohibits the state statute banning firearms on university campuses I’m met only with excuses or “that’s the way it is”/”I can’t do anything about it”.
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.