This was and is a bad bill. A wussified constitutional carry if you will. It is not constitutional carry, a bill that was introduced earlier in session and failed.
This bill is a legislative CYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bill in question requires a drivers license, so no Constitutional carry. South Dakota gun owners see it as bad also and recommend non passage.
The real key will be Monday veto day in the legislature, when they do not override the veto. Hopefully that will be the case.
I don’t believe this article explains the issue well for most readers to understand why the Governor is reluctant to sign off on it, and why South Dakotan’s would agree with the Governor. That and of course the fact too few read beyond the headline much less the excerpt.
I read the entire article, and am still confused.
Going to look up the bill, and see if it then makes any sense to me.
Rapid City Editorial:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/mobile/article_fc273076-68a3-11e1-bf47-001871e3ce6c.html
Another link on the matter:
http://www.constantconservative.com/2012/carrying-concealed-without-permits
Is it the necessity of a drivers license that is objectionable? By eliminating the necessity of a drivers license the bill would be more acceptable?
This is why I’ve been against all those “Voter Id “ laws that have been passed recently. In person voter-fraud lets you cast ONE tainted vote, and only if you know enough about another person to successfully impersonate them at the polls (You’ve always needed to show ID and proof of citizenship when registering to vote)
HOWEVER it sets the legal precedent that a government issued ID can be required when exercising a constitutional right, and that completely cuts the heart out of all the legal theory behind Constitutional Carry.
I hate to say it, but we’ve been our own worst enemy on this subject