Have Gun, Will Travel (in state)

HB 1248 would allow anyone with valid South Dakota driver?s license, and who is otherwise qualified, to carry a concealed firearm, without getting a permit. This bill is currently waiting for Governor to sign it into law. Law enforcement is opposed to this bill. Most of people who apply for the permit, do not want to carry a firearm for self-protection; they simply don?t want to run afoul with the law while doing something otherwise legal, putting on a long coat while carrying a pistol for example.  I am not opposed to generally allowing people to carry a weapon, concealed or open carry. However, when you mix a volatile situation, with an inexperienced, untrained, unstable person, and a firearm, the results can be somewhat less than ideal. Leaving who can and can?t or shouldn?t carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, in the hands of local law enforcement is the best option. If there is a volient situation they are the ones who will respond first.

If this is sign into law, I hope there an education blitz planned to make sure the people understand what is and isn?t legal.

42 Replies to “Have Gun, Will Travel (in state)”

  1. Anonymous

    I suppose this will make it easier for law abiding citizens to own a hand gun.

    Criminals are the ones who break the laws and ruin it for everyone else.

  2. Charlie Hoffman

    We write all kinds of laws every year which only apply to a majority of law abiding people. It is against the law to steal, murder, rape, lie under oath, commit arson, speed beyond the posted limit, drive while intoxicated, drive without insurance, drive while distracted, forge personal signatures, carry concealed without a permit, etc. All the laws in the world though will never stop anyone from breaking them, only give pause to the law abiding citizen before making that mental check before doing so.

  3. caheidelberger

    “All the laws in the world… will never stop anyone from breaking them…” yet we continue to pass laws, because we know anarchy and libertarianism don’t work.

    Local control sounds nice, but the Republicans in Pierre don’t really believe in it. They’ve put statutes on the books that prevent local government from restricting who can and cannot carry a weapon. (See the statutes listed in this year’s defeated HB 1258, an effort by Rep. Hoffman’s conservative friends to clarify and tighten that ban on local control.) Rep. Hoffman joined the House in trying really hard to take away the most local control possible, voting for HB 1132 to take away property owners’ right to guns aren’t welcome on their premises.

      1. D.E. Bishop

        No he’s not. That was a reasonable and simple comment. Can you respond to the comment?

        1. Anonymous

          I’ll respond to it…since so many of the posers on this website seem unable to pull together a conservative thought…

          To Corey’s point – local control is a great idea when fosters liberty and is consistent with the US and SD constitutions.

          Limiting local control when it impedes upon constitutional rights is perfectly acceptable and absolutely consistent with conservative thought.

          For example, limiting cities from limiting gun rights – is conservative. Limiting cities from raising taxes – is conservative. Limiting cities from limiting liberties is a completely consistent with the conservative Republican mantra of local control.

          I don’t believe that, most South Dakota Republicans blindly or spastically utter local control just for kicks. It’s meant to describe a much more coherent thought that is consistent with constitutional principles of liberty and freedom….even if some Republicans don’t quite fully understand it or are even to articulate it in such terms.

          Local control in and of itself is not constitutional in South Dakota. The United States Supreme Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court have repeatedly affirmed that all levels of government below the State are creations of the State and thus subject to limitations on their powers…as opposed to the 10th amendment paradigm employed when debating the rights of States versus the federal government.

          In South Dakota- municipalities are subservient to the State and are creatures of the state – which can be molded, shaped, abused, controlled limited (chose your contortion metaphor) in whatever image the State demands.

          So, when I hear Republicans demanding local control – it’s local control that is consistent with ensuring liberty, not restricting it and consistent with protecting constitutional rights, not eroding them.

          1. Anonymous

            line 6 above was rather in artfully stated…I didn’t mean to say that local control is “not constitutional.”

            I meant that local control can be abridge and is not immune from restrictions by the state.

  4. Anonymous

    Just a few law enforcement officers oppose this bill. Rep. Gene Abdallah is the former head of the Highway Patrol and he not only voted for the bill, he actively promoted it. Several county sheriffs also favor it. It won’t stop a criminal from carrying a concealed weapon, because they will continue to break the law anyway. This just keeps honest citizens from having to pay what amounts to a tax to get permission for a constitutional right.

  5. annon

    “Leave who can or can’t carry a firearm in the hands of the local law enforcement is the best option”
    I can’t believe you said that! First of all law enforcement have no right to determine who carries a firearm. It is my constitutional right. In the case of this law, it only allows a citizen the ability to put that firearm out of sight. People seem to have a warped sence about what this legislation is really about. BTW Cory, “local control” never trumps constitutional rights.

  6. Anonymous

    The right to life, and the right defend said life, is bestowed upon us by God. No man or government can rightfully place a claim against those rights. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not get?

    1. anon

      Rep. Hoffman is as decisive as the SD wind. If you like/dislike his position on an issue? Just wait, it will change. I hear he is a nice enough guy; however, that type of voting record makes him a pawn of others.

  7. D.E. Bishop

    I have a question for you gentlemen: Should there be no restrictions of the rights of felons who used guns in the commission of their felonies? How about a man who promised to shoot the wife and children he has abused for years?

    These things commonly happen. If there are no restrictions, doesn’t that give them open season on the ones the want to shoot?

    1. Anonymous

      If the guy is already a felon, he can’t legally have a gun. I don’t see how your red herring has any bearing on this issue. He’s going to have a gun whether it’s legal or not and obviously no law is going to stop him from committing a crime.

      1. D.E. Bishop

        That wasn’t a red herring. It was a serious question. I’ve been asking several questions on this blog in an effort to understand a conservative thinking process. Earlier there was a response to me that presented conservative/ libertarian thought in a way that was much clearer and coherent than I have heard before.

        It is problematic when a particular, strongly identified political group presents many variations on an issue. It often doesn’t sound coherent. So I’m asking you to make it clearer. Can you get off your name-calling high horse and do that for me?

        This quote sounds all-encompassing, sounds like a call to remove *all* gun-control, including everything that exists now. That is what I am asking about.

        Here’s the quote from an earlier comment:

        ?Leave who can or can?t carry a firearm in the hands of the local law enforcement is the best option?
        I can?t believe you said that! First of all law enforcement have no right to determine who carries a firearm. It is my constitutional right. In the case of this law, it only allows a citizen the ability to put that firearm out of sight. People seem to have a warped sence about what this legislation is really about. BTW Cory, ?local control? never trumps constitutional rights.”

        Note, Anonymous. That poster seems to be in conflict with your description of when local rights should prevail. Clarification please?

        1. duggersd

          Conservatives will have disagreements, just as liberal will. I consider myself a conservative. I have a concealed carry permit and do not have a problem with being required to have one. I do not believe this is an infringement on my right to carry a firearm as if I want to openly carry it, I can. I really do not see a need for this law.
          As for felons carrying, that is a different story. Few conservatives will suggest removing laws that take away a felon’s 2nd Amendment rights. Remember, this is just one conservative’s opinion.

          1. Les

            Dug Dug Dug…Where do you think you are going with a “”””””””Just because something is commonly done, doesn?t make it right. Isn?t that correct, you anti-birth control and abortion folks?”””””””””””” pot stirrer.

            Not red herring??!@!#^&*%$?

            Annnnnnd “””””””””””I?ve been asking several questions on this blog in an effort to understand a conservative thinking process.””””””””””””. Ol DE workin her magic, you sure have ol girl but consensus you’re not after. You got the Dug, hook line and sinker, I’d let him go DE, he’ll be bigger’n better and smarter next time ur out fishin.

            1. duggersd

              Les, are you claiming I made that quote? And just what do you disagree with? If you believe requiring a concealed carry permit to hide a gun, that is a fair argument. I disagree. I believe reasonable people can disagree. Unreasonable people are not even worth talking to.

              1. Les

                DE quote??”?”?”?Just because something is commonly done, doesn?t make it right. Isn?t that correct, you anti-birth control and abortion folks??”?”?”?”?”?”

                DE quote??”?”?”?”?”I?ve been asking several questions on this blog in an effort to understand a conservative thinking process.?”?”?”?”?”?”

                Sorry Dug, I assumed you read the Blogs including War School. DE is ok but looks like a stirrer in some blogs and a butt kisser in others..making her way back into SD I guess??

                1. duggersd

                  Mostly two SD blogs. This one and SD Politics. I only have so much time. I was responding to what was asked in that one post. Nothing more, nothing less.

  8. Anonymous

    How about the real question:

    Should those who don’t have a drivers license be able to drive a car? No. Do they? Sometimes and people who break laws often don’t care if they break one more.

  9. grudznick

    I do not have a driver’s license any more. I have an ID card. Does that document count?

    1. Anonymous

      We all know you are a young man who thinks you are pretty funny.

      Enjoy those gravy taters my friend.

    2. Anonymous

      I don’t think the ID would work, you could get a CWP in lieu of the drivers license! But you would probably get tired carrying the big old .44 cal iron on your hip under your duster in July or Aug.

  10. Troy Jones

    I have a simple view on this:

    1) I have a constitutional right to own and carry a gun.

    2) No constitutional right is unlimited (ie free speech doesn’t protect yelling fire in a theatre or speaking libel/slander). Thus, felons and people who pose extraordinary risk (violent history/mental problems) can have their gun rights limited even to the point of prohibition.

    3) Open carry gives notice to society, individuals, and law enforcement one is exercising their right.

    4) Concealed carry is nothing more than notice to law enforcement/society one has been deemed not a felon nor a extraordinary risk to the public.

    5) I do not think it an excesive burden to one’s constitutional rights for one who wants to exercise this right to demonstrate a minimal amount of competence (ie gun safety training) to ge the permit.

    6) A driver’s licence is notice one is proficient to drive a car. A person who can’t drive can still be competant to carry a concealed weapon. And a person who can drive is not prove one can/should carry a concealed weapon.

    7) I think some reform of what consitutes concealed carry needs to be revisited. I think it goofy that having a gun laying on the seat is considered “open carry” and in my cubby hole of my vehicle is “concealed carry.” In both cases, another driver has no more notice I have a gun. I think carry laws apply the moment I get out of my car. Permit: carry concealed. No permit: open carry. As an addendum to this, I think for the protection of law enforcement, one should have an affirmative duty when engaging with law enforcement to immediately inform them one has a gun accessable (whether on seat, under the seat or in cubby hole).

    Thus, I hope the Governor vetoes the bill.

    1. Anonymous

      I have had a concealed carry permit for a very long time and will continue to get a permit to take advantage of the reciprocity agreement South Dakota has with all adjoining states except Minnesota. South Dakota is one of 27 states having reciprocity.

      There has never been a requirement that you actually know how to use a gun or even own one to get the permit. You have to pass the background check to prove you are neither a felon or certifiably insane. If this bill is signed into law it will still be illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you are a felon or insane. The only thing that will change is that the state won?t be able to collect the $10 tax to allow you to exercise your constitutional right to carry.

      The only reason the bill requires a South Dakota drivers license is to prove you are a legal resident of South Dakota. Just yesterday a Federal judge ruled that Maryland residents do not have to provide a ?good and substantial reason? to legally own a handgun, striking down the state?s current requirement for obtaining a permit as unconstitutional. Do you think the judge was wrong?

      Liberal Vermont has never required a permit to carry a concealed weapon and three other states, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming no longer require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Check this link to see the history of concealed carry permit laws in all states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

      Hopefully South Dakota will become the next green state on this map!

      1. Les

        Your comment “”reciprocity agreement South Dakota has with all adjoining states except Minnesota. “” is erroneous.

        MN and NE do not accept SD’s concealed carry. Neither do WA, NV, CA, OR, KS, NM, WI, OH SC, NH, MA, CT, RI, NJ, DE, MD, DC and HI. I believe they feel we need to do a class to be acceptable and I would like to see the bill pass and a requirement to test for the permit to carry with reciprocity to come at that point.

        Here is the link, study directions carefully to accurately use it. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

        It looks to me a SD plus a Nevada permit gives you the most coverage. Under current laws.

        1. duggersd

          I believe you can get an out of state cc permit from MN and it along with the SD cc permit will allow you to carry in most states. Still, I do not believe requiring a cc permit is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

          1. Les

            You are right Dug, but you can get a Tx permit as a non resident with nothing else and carry better than with an SD permit.

          1. Les

            Careful how you read all those. That is the same mistake I made. It shows we honor NE..scroll down to SD and it doesn’t show NE in the list to the right.

            I was ready to hand off my cc and drivers license a couple days ago in the event of a traffic stop in KS and NE…thankfully I didn’t violate any laws. It would have been a bad day as both my wife and I carry.

        2. Les

          Good ol North Dakota has the best non res cc permit up close next to TX. I was wrong about NV, it just covered the KS, NE I wanted for close travel.

  11. Anonymous

    I will be at the next session carrying a weapon, and then will I get stopped? How about the court house or say the local treasurer’s office. We can not take this right away from people to guard against the carrying of several thousand dollars to pay for taxes, vehicle lic. Or am I missing something.

    1. Anonymous

      You will be committing a criminal act if you try to carry a gun, concealed or not, into the Capitol building, some county courthouses, federal buildings, schools, or anywhere else where you are not allowed to take a gun now.

      “We can not take this right away from people to guard against the carrying of several thousand dollars to pay for taxes, vehicle lic. Or am I missing something.” Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.

  12. Anonymous

    I support the new law. My wife sometimes uses my vehicle which has a pistol under the seat. If she would be stopped and the pistol is discoverd, under current law she could be charged with having a concealed gun without a the permit.

  13. D.E. Bishop

    MN requires 8 hours of gun safety classes and a fee. If the applicant successfully completes all requirements the state must issue her the permit.

    Also in MN, legally permitted guns may be taken anywhere, with certain exceptions, such as courthouses, etc. unless it is expressly forbidden in writing. The only way a business, or church, or meeting place can keep guns out is to prominently display signs next to the entrances that says, “(Name) does not permit guns on this property.” So just about every place has such a sign by the door. It’s kind of a joke.

    At this time MN does not accept SD permits. I know because I have a gun that never leaves my house. I have not gotten a MN permit yet. I’m hoping for reciprocity.

    You may have heard that the MN legislature proposed an enhanced “Castle Doctrine.” That refers to MN law that allows one to use deadly force on an intruder in one’s home, without fear of criminal charges. That law states that the person’s first effort must be to retreat. The enhancement the Repub dominated legislature passed a few days ago was referred to as “Shoot first, ask questions later” law. No retreat necessary, no need to identify the intruder as someone other than the drunken neighbor. All levels of law enforcement strongly opposed it. Gov. Dayton, D, vetoed it yesterday.

    Thought this group might find that info interesting.

    (Les, sorry you’re offended by my reasonable tone.)

  14. D.E. Bishop

    Oh, and I contribute to several blogs of a variety of political positions. It’s interesting. I also participate on religious blogs.

    I probably do more blogging than I should. I am sincerely interested in how people think, how they arrive at the conclusions they reach. I get frustrated or angry when they just throw out a couple of easy boiler plate lines, talking points, or insults. Or when they refuse to give me the courtesy and consideration I try to offer them.

    Some days my patience might be waning, and I get a little too sharp. I really try to avoid that. I apologize for the times that I don’t avoid that. (That’s a real apology, not a Rush Apology.)

  15. Anonymous

    I got this email from the Gun Owners of America and thought you might like to see what they say about HB 1248:

    Gun Owners of America
    ________________________________________
    Constitutional Carry Bill Awaiting Action on Gov. Daugaard?s Desk
    — Ask him to sign this important piece of legislation

    A bill to allow all South Dakotans to carry a handgun without getting government permission is awaiting Gov. Dennis Daugaard?s signature.

    HB 1248 would allow all law-abiding citizens in the state to carry handguns as a matter of right — without having to submit to any obnoxious background checks or waiting periods. But while HB 1248 is a terrific bill, the Governor is not sure what he will do.

    ?It is uncertain whether the Governor will sign the bill,? reports Bonzer Wolf, a Second Amendment activist who covers freedom issues. ?Gov. Daugaard said Wednesday (February 29) that he has yet to examine it closely. The governor is required by law to sign or veto the law two weeks after he receives it.?

    ACTION: Please contact Gov. Daugaard and urge him to sign HB 1248.