As Promised, Governor Daugaard Vetoes HB 1072, Permitless Concealed Carry, as well as carrying in the Capitol.

Today, as promised, Governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed House Bill 1072, (An act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol) commonly known as the bill to allow permitless carrying of concealed firearms.

From the Legislative Research Council:

March 17, 2017

The Honorable G. Mark Mickelson
Speaker of the House
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,

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.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Daugaard

He also vetoed House Bill 1156 – an act to allow a concealed pistol in the capitol with an enhanced concealed pistol permit.

Thoughts?  (Don’t be shy. I’m sure you have a few.)

32 Replies to “As Promised, Governor Daugaard Vetoes HB 1072, Permitless Concealed Carry, as well as carrying in the Capitol.”

  1. Liberty Dick

    It’s going to be signed into law eventually. Year one of either Jackley or Noem it’s a done deal. This was a bad move for the governor. His reputation is tanking and he risks taking even more people down with him.

    1. Anonymous

      I’ll believe that when you get Noem or Jackley to say oncanera, to a reporter or in a committee hearing they support constitutional carry and will sign it. Anyone can tell you anything you want to hear when you are the only person in the room.

      Jackley wouldn’t support it because he’s head of law enforcement. Did he publicly support this law? No. figure out why.

      Has Noem ever indicated she supports it? Not to my knowledge and the reason is 1. It’s a state issue and she’s been a congresswoman. 2. I don’t think she supports it any more than DD.

      If you can prove me wrong I’m ok with it. But none of them support it. Not on the record anyway.

    1. Troy Jones

      And these esteemed law enforcement groups;

      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

      1. Anonymous

        I fully support the Governor and appreciate him being able to moderate the extremist fear driven legislation on this particular issue. Well done sir!

  2. press1280

    Of course, no mention of the other states which allow for concealed carry w/o a permit. It’s always implied all hell will break out, but it never happens.
    And the LEO groups are all about the money and don’t want their little slush funds going away.

    1. Anonymous

      I was surprised by the list. Liberal Vermont. New Hampshire. New Mexico. How did they get that through in those states?

      The conceal carry issue is not in my top 500 issues but what Daugaard said is not factual. The only difference between open carry and concealed carry in SD is weather or not it’s cold outside.

  3. Jon

    Just because Scalia said that concealed carry restrictions are constitutional, doesn’t mean that they are effective, necessary or useful. There is no evidence requiring a permit for concealed carry actually reduces crime. It is true that South Dakota’s permitting process is simple, easy and inexpensive… but what does that matter if it serves no measurable purpose or benefit. Just because some people were denied permits doesn’t mean that any crime was prevented.

    Of the handful of people who get denied permits… some are denied due to mistakes, some are denied because they have something in their record from many, many years ago that disqualifies them (35 year old domestic assault charges from when someone was 18 years old and no subsequent criminal record… a fairly common fact pattern) and some are denied simply because they were not aware that their record made them ineligible for a permit. Regardless, how many people who intend to commit a crime with a pistol are going to be concerned about getting a permit beforehand?

    In order to claim that a concealed carry permitting reduces crime, you have to make some fairly absurd assumptions. First, you have to assume that concealing a pistol somehow increases a person’s ability or inclination to commit crimes as if there are crimes that take place only because someone was able to conceal their pistol instead of carry it openly. Does anyone ever say to themselves, “Well I would go out and use my gun in a crime, except I cannot conceal my gun legally.” Minnesota has a similarly ridiculous law against transporting guns in vehicle gun racks…. I’m sure that one is keeping a lot of people safe too.

    You also have to assume that a potential criminal who is willing to commit a crime with a gun in the first place is willing to obey the law about obtaining a permit before hand. The same criteria for buying and possessing a firearm is used to grant/deny permits. If someone is ineligible for a concealed carry permit, it is already also illegal for them to buy and possess a gun. If a criminal is willing to break the first two laws, does anyone really think that the concealed carry permitting process is going to make any difference?

    Lastly, you have to disregard the fact that there may very well be potential law abiding VICTIMs of crime who would carry a concealed pistol but don’t because they just never bothered to get a permit. Stay with me on this one because it is more common than you might think. This is the person who owns a pistol but doesn’t regularly carry it and has never felt the need to get a permit. Then something in life happens to them, (typically a dispute with a family member, friend, stalker or neighbor) where on very short notice they realize that they may not be safe and may be being targeted for some form of violence. This person would carry their gun with them in response to this perceived threat but they don’t because they don’t have a permit and are unable to get one on short notice. Every time you read a news story about a murder, a rape, an assault or an attack realize that the victim was probably unarmed and at a disadvantage.

    The parade of horrible from the governor on this matter is simply not accurate and other states that have adopted constitutional carry have not seen increases in crime. They did eliminate another layer in the onion of unnecessary government red tape. It may be constitutional, but it serves no purpose.

    Just my 2 cents!

  4. Anonymous

    It is aggravating that we have so many Republicans who get elected claiming to be conservatives and then show their true colors once they are in office.

  5. Anonymous

    How many people in the Republican primary support this? I bet a good number. I bet even more west river. Daugaard doesn’t have to run again so he doesn’t care.

  6. jimmy james

    So that drunk next to me in the bar can have a concealed weapon without so much as a permit? Of course. Just like Deadwood in the good ol’ days.

    I’d say we look like fools to the rest of the world with this type of legislation…. but that is just a motivator for some of you.

    1. Jon

      It’s already illegal to possess a firearm while drunk and it is illegal to possess in a bar, concealed or not. If an armed drunk in a bar means you harm, he’s not going to get a permit first. Your example is nonsense.

      1. jimmy james

        If so, I am sure there will soon be legislation to allow it. In the Capitol. On campus. At the daycare. Why stop now?

        1. jimmy james

          Question: Just what type of establishments are guns not allowed? Places that derive most of their sales from liquor or all establishments that sell it?

      2. duggersd

        So, isn’t that law infringing the 2nd Amendment? Also the state constitution? It says NOTHING about being drunk.

  7. Wow

    The concealed carry seems to be ok as it is now. I want to throw something out there, though. If you are working at the capitol in an office, you would have to rely on yourself during the entry of a gun-wielding lunatic. These offices are small with no way out in some cases.

  8. Lee A Schoenbeck

    To me it looks like two entirely different pieces of legislation.

    The guns in the capitol thing is just goofy and you couldn’t get 15% of SD to sign off on that – put it on the ballot and you’ll find out.

    Constitutional carry is a very different animal. My first reaction was like the opponents above, and then I spent some more time thinking about it and what it really means. Eventually I voted for it and I would again. As noted above, virtually every parade of horrible isn’t true and is covered by some other law. Right now your (almost) looniest neighbor can walk down main street with a loaded pistol – no permit – no problem. That’s the status quo —- for those of you that might not fully appreciate this. Constitutional carry says a person can walk down the same street – but instead of wearing their pistol on a holster at their side – they can put it in their pocket. Its not that big of a deal.

    But, I blame the goofs that keep putting a dozen gun bills in every year on every subject imaginable (why do they think we need so many more gun laws — dang liberals and their law loving legislating) for creating an impression that the rest of us firearms folks are a little off. We aren’t — they are. This issue wouldn’t be so controversial if we firearms owners didn’t have so many “friends” with all their proposals every year.

  9. Troy Jones


    First you are correct on many levels. Good gun legislation is hurt because of those who want to take every gun issue to an extreme. Sit down in any coffee shop of average folks and they all get why there are SOME places (private and public) where governing entities (private and public) should be allowed to restrict gun access. Taking guns into the Capitol (or onto military bases) is a policy few people support outside the wacky extremists.

    Second, with regard to allowing Concealed Carry without a permit, I’d like to have a straight up conversation where ideas are able to discussed without being immediately dismissed.

    What is the historical reason why we distinguish concealed carry and non-concealed carry? Lee, your comments suggest it might be distinction without a difference. Until I hear the history, I’m not so sure.

    Why are law enforcement so broadly vehemently opposed to Concealed Carry without a permit? Lee, your comments suggest it might be distinction without a difference. Until I hear directly from law enforcement, I can’t accept your suggestion.

    Personally, I think restrictions on ownership and transfer of guns are much more problematic to ensuring we keep our gun rights. If I’m carrying, I have no problem showing that clearly to my neighbors and don’t believe them showing it to me is a threat to their rights. What is a threat is stopping them from getting a gun.

    1. Anonymous

      Daugaard has made this an issue in 2018 for NAGR. Jackley, Noem, Krebs and Johnson will all have to take a position on this issue now because someone will ask them what they think on camera.

      I sense this issue will impact the Governor’s race more than the US House race.

    2. Anonymous

      When I am carrying, I don’t want the world to know. I don’t like to advertise “Hey everyone, I’m armed.” I carry it for protection for me, my family or any other victim of a violent crime, hopefully I will never need it.

      1. duggersd

        I believe the last time I had my CC renewed, it cost me $5. Get your CC and you can carry and not advertise you are armed. BTW, I choose not to carry in spite of having a CC–usually.

  10. Charlie Hoffman

    The whole argument is nothing but a fundraising party for the Lautenslauger’s and they somehow talked the NRA into bringing fireworks to the party. Very disappointing.

    The lying thug style postcards from SDGO’s which somehow are Non-Profit (US Postal Service-Hello!) are even more unfortunate as they paint an honest opinion as something of an Anti-American stance. Seriously I get the argument- like a $15 plastic card is going to stop a Minneapolis gang banger from blowing out a casino workers brains for the key to the money drawer.

    If we were really smart we’d have areas where only CC permitted folks could carry and encouraged to with open carry being disallowed. Like the State Fair where I have seen grunts open carry to look tough. Stupidity at its finest.

    Just sitting out here on the edge of things waiting for the next big fundraising bill to come along from the Lautenslauger’s….

    1. Anonymous

      Regarding your comments, If the governor had just signed it the Launtenslaugers wouldn’t be able to have it as a ‘fundraising party’ with ‘lying thug style postcards’, right? These bills are a whole lot more than that.

      And what you advocated in your 3rd paragraph, areas where CC only would be permitted, 1156 would do just that in the state capitol, but Daugaard vetoed it. I know constitutional office holders who would love to have a pistol in their office because they are sitting ducks if a disgruntled person walks in with intent to kill.

  11. jimmy james

    What percentage of gun deaths are legitimate self-defense incidents? I have read that about 60% of shootings are suicides. Another roughly 30 percent are murders. Then there are accidental deaths.

    So, being an odds guy, I would think twice before I carried a concealed weapon. Although I am sure you would all feel more comfortable if I had one.

    1. Jon


      Being a numbers and odds guy, how many crimes assaults, rapes and murders are prevented because a the mere presence of a gun? In those instances a shot is never fired. I believe that takes place much force frequently than active gun fight self defense situations.

      One way to measure this is to compare crime rates with gun owner friendly areas to places that limit self defense. You know how that comparison turns out. In the end the numbers never justify limiting gun rights to prevent crime or increase safety because no correlation between the two can be made.