NRA-Backed measures to streamline background checks, and allow permitless carry introduced in in South Dakota Legislature

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is getting fully behind two measures introduced by State Representative Jim Stalzer to both streamline the concealed weapon permitting process, as well as to create a permitless carrying option for South Dakota residents. The permitless option would keep the current system of concealed weapon permits in place for those who seek reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon across state lines.

First, House Bill 1096:

Yesterday, House Bill 1096, authored by state Representative Jim Stalzer (R-11), was introduced in the South Dakota House of Representatives.  HB 1096 revises the procedure for issuing a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  These changes, if enacted into law, will allow the state to apply for NICS exemption certification from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  If certified by the BATFE, this exemption would allow the initial background check done for a South Dakota concealed pistol permit to serve as a background check for all future purchases, eliminating the duplicative process.

Read more on it here via the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.   Also, and more importantly, House Bill 1116 which would allow South Dakota residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, unless they sought reciprocity with other permitting states:

HB 1116 is a necessary update to concealed carry statutes in South Dakota, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.  In South Dakota, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, one would need to possess a concealed pistol permit.

This permitless carry legislation gives South Dakotans the freedom to choose the best method of carrying for them, based on their attire, gender and/or physical attributes.  However, this legislation would also keep in place the current permitting system so that people who obtain a permit could still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.

Read that here.

The first measure has 19 co sponsors, and the permitless carry option presented in 1116 has 28.

A prior measure to allow permitless, or constitutional carry, found itself at the wrong end of a Gubernatorial veto from Governor Daugaard in 2012.

What do you think? Is it time to consider permitless carry in South Dakota?

36 Replies to “NRA-Backed measures to streamline background checks, and allow permitless carry introduced in in South Dakota Legislature”

  1. Anonymous

    Yes!!! There are 2 permit less carry bills that have been introduced, both bills are welcomed reforms!!! Thank you to Representatives Stalzer and Russell for all your hard work on behalf of the 2nd Amendment!

    Reply
  2. Anon.

    Um, no. Making it easier at the SO to get a permit is fine, but permitless concealed carry is not something to condone. We do not need to get into the whole constitutional rights morass, but a permit does serve at least as some kind of protection, some kind of safeguard, from those who should not carry any firearms on their person, concealed or otherwise. Yes, felons may not have firearms, but some people with class 1 and class 2 misdemeanors should not be granted the legal privilege of carrying concealed weapons. They may open carry an arsenal if they so choose, but concealed carry should be pursuant to a permit process.

    Reply
    1. Anti-Partisan

      It’s not a privilege. It is, in fact, a right. Your desire to not discuss the constitution when addressing such matters is a disturbing indication of the general lack of appreciation for its (the constitution’s) role and purpose in our nation. K blame both public education and the apathy of parents.

      Reply
  3. MC

    I spoke with my local sheriff about this issue. The primary reason that people get conceled carry permit is not so they can walk around with guns. The primary reason is so if someone is carrying a gun in their daily business (farmer, rancher ) and puts on a coat or jacket, they won’t run afoul with the law. Besides it those the peopel who take the time to go through the process he worries about, It the one he doesn’t know about that concern him and his deupties.

    Reply
      1. anon.

        Or maybe it is because you are too lazy to spend the ten minutes it takes to apply for the permit? Or maybe you have a criminal past and probably should not be carrying a concealed weapon? Oh, and I know the constitution. You have the right to bear arms, but it does not give you an unfettered right. Permitless concealed carry is not something we should support.

        Reply
  4. SportGunner

    MC- Per SDCL 22-14-11, no permit is required to conceal in a person’s home, business, or on their land. Applies whether they own or rent. Applies to their household members as well.

    In my experience, most permit holders have them precisely for the purpose of carrying on their person and in their vehicles.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “Applies whether they own or rent”

      According to the statute, “rent” ONLY applies to rented land, not a rented apartment.

      Reply
  5. Rich Hilgemann

    Its a great idea and should be passed immediately! When I was a police officer I didn’t know if someone I was dealing with was armed or not until I frisked them or they were forthcoming with the information off the bat. If the individual being dealt with is suspected to not be able to legally carry a weapon then the quick NCIC check would verify their status. Which most officers have the ability to run in their vehicles now. If that technology isn’t available a radio and dispatcher should suffice. Its time to pass this thing.

    Reply
    1. Anon

      Rich, I’m sure your 10-59 inquiry went a lot like this:
      Dispatch, I’m going to need a license check on a “Sirajuddin Haqqani” by name and date of birth, common spelling……and dispatch told you he was “not on file” so you let him go about his business with his concealed firearm. Then 4 hours later somebody calls you from the FBI’s JTTF in Minneapolis to let you know you just stopped a known terrorist.

      I offer this tongue in cheek Rich. I’m glad you’ve served your community and I respect that you believe this would work in the jurisdiction in which you served. I have a well-placed belief based on my personal experience that NCIC is not a “catch all” solution and our existing statute is a very reasonable, justified limitation on how we exercise our right to carry. There are 1,000’s of John Smith’s across this country who are “prohibited persons” due to their criminal records. I am John Smith. And I don’t want to be confused with (and detained due to that confusion) while a cop (who may not be as good as you were Rich) sorts out who I really am. I am Jose Garcia Jimenez. I was born and raised in South Dakota. I have not been convicted of a domestic assault and I have not been convicted of “Criminal Mischief 4th Degree” in Florida in 1992. And if I was convicted of that (felony?) charge in Florida does that make me a “prohibited person” if the charge was “suspended” or “disposition [was] deferred” or if it resulted in an “unknown disposition” on NCIC?

      A quick background check by our elected sheriffs pursuant to our State’s “shall issue” concealed weapons permitting statute goes a long way to protect us all. NCIC is loaded with JOHN SMITH’s and (insert Mexican surnames and other “foreign” names here) which result in either 10,000 “hits” or a “not on file” response all the time.

      Reply
      1. SportGunner

        Constitutional carry does not eliminate permits, just makes getting one an elective process rather than mandatory. If similarity hits are a concern to you, you can still get a permit.

        Reply
        1. Anon

          Maybe I over-simplified my examples. I work with NCIC almost everyday of the week. I sign my name to documents, swearing that the individual listed in the caption I’ve created has been CONVICTED of the felonies I’ve listed. NCIC is not fail safe. I routinely call clerks of court and prosecutors from around the country to determine if a person has actually been convicted of a felony charge. Beyond that, I routinely am called upon to interpret whether or not a charge from another jurisdiction is considered a “felony” under our State statutes. Knowing full-well the risk of being flamed by the commenters herein: I am an expert in working with NCIC records. There, I said it, the attacks should start any second now…
          My opinion is this, NCIC doesn’t always do what we’d like it to do under the circumstances I’ve enumerated. Because of this, “similarity” hits should be a concern to all of us Mr. Sportgunner. Afterall, my name is John Sportgunner too.

          It is too dangerous to tie our law enforcement up on the side of the road at 4 a.m. trying to make the determination to further detain (until the records come back “clear”) or to arrest an individual who may or may not be a prohibited person. “Dangerous” for all of us as unlawful detentions and unlawful arrests are expensive for everyone involved.

          I hunt. I shoot, a lot. I own more NFA controlled firearms than the average bear(er). I am a proud, active member of the NRA. I will pass every “purity” test you throw at me. And yet I sincerely ask you not to let law enforcement detain me for 4 hours (and possibly unlawfully arrest me) because they think I’m a prohibited person. On the flipside let’s not make it easier for prohibited criminals to exploit and disgrace our constitutional rights by allowing them nearly unfettered possession of concealed firearms.

          Oh, and why don’t I just go get a permit? Well, for starters, that’s not really a logical response. Beyond that, how the hell am I supposed to know I have the same name as a convicted felon from Florida? And now I’m in jail because Deputy Jingleheimer-Schmidt (who isn’t as smart as Rich Hilgemann and David Tennessen) couldn’t figure that out. Believe it or not, not all cops are as pro-gun as you and I.

          Reply
      2. Rich Hilgemann

        Isn’t your John Smith going to need a SD ID or some proof of residency in the state? The way I read it the law only applies to our local SD citizens.

        Reply
        1. Anon

          Rich,
          Yep. And people move to South Dakota every day with out of state convictions which prohibit them from possessing firearms.

          Reply
  6. Troy Jones

    Anti-partisan,

    I agree we have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

    But, I think you are too hard when people say it is a privilege because it is that too. Whether it be free speech (can’t be slanderous or libelous or yell “fire” in theater) or carrying guns, rights come with obligations to exercise those rights prudently and responsibly or they can be taken away (felons can’t carry guns), thus the privilege as well.

    Additionally, whether you believe the rights are granted by God or the people collectively (enumerated in the Constitution), they are a gift from someone. Having the perspective they are YOURS as in ownership vs. stewardship and as gift makes it easy to forget to have a grateful heart and always cognizant of the obligations that come with the rights.

    Again, don’t get me wrong. I believe this is a fundamental right (more grounded in human dignity and than right to defend ourselves than its enumeration in the Constitution) where using the term “right” is wholly appropriate. I just believe referring to it and remembering it as a privilege has its merits as well.

    Reply
    1. Dicta

      To pile on, we place limitations on fundamental rights all the time. Simply pointing at the second amendment and crowing “Nu-uh” anytime someone has a law that places limits on it isn’t good enough. The burden is on the people attempting to place the limitation, but it isn’t a complete bar to action.

      Reply
        1. Dicta

          I’ve expressed my reasons why I think the government has a basis to prevent it. Are you going to follow me into every thread trying to pick this fight over and over again? It’s coming across as a bit childish.

          Reply
  7. David Tennessen

    I am all for allowing law abiding South Dakota residents the right to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. The only tweak I would like to see to these two pieces of legislation is the requirement to demonstrate knowledge in gun safety and proficiency.

    I am a 32 year law enforcement veteran (honorably retired). Under federal law, HR 218, I may legally carry in all 50 states. However, I must qualify with each weapon that I carry concealed within the past twelve months. Hence, annual qualification through a certified course. I don’t feel this is at all unreasonable.

    Reply
    1. SportGunner

      David- Thank you for your service.

      Point of detail for the benefit of others: LEOSA requires that you qualify only with one of the same type (semi-auto, revolver) of firearm you will carry, not each of them. Nor does it require qualification by make, model, or caliber.

      You have 32 years of experiences and context which colors your views. View the training requirement you advocate from the perspective of a someone without the time, financial, or travel resources to go to a class. Should they be denied the basic human right of self defense because they could not attend a class?

      Reply
      1. David Tennessen

        SportGunner,
        You are correct about HR 218 qualification. I qualify with a .380, a 38 Cal., a 40 cal., and a 45 cal. All weapons I carry at various times, but not always the same weapon I actually shoot during qualification. My statement was accurate and intended for brevity.

        I would not seek to disallow a law abiding South Dakota resident from carrying a concealed weapon. However, based upon my 32+ years in law enforcement I can tell you that a trained and educated populace with firearms is the surest way to win the war against naysayers of the 2nd Amendment.

        The cost of qualification is minimal compared to the cost of needless mishaps that will surely lead to government intervention into our constitutional right to carry a firearm.
        Respectfully,
        DT

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Aren’t you a Californian that just came to SD? While you may think such proposals were great in CA, CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. If such proposals were so great and worked so well? Why then are you in backwoods SD where we believe people are safer if they are able to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their family? To fix us to be more like California? No thanks!

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            Nice ad hominem attack Anonymous. I was born and raised in South Dakota, served in the USMC, spent 32+years in Calif law enforcement and CHOSE to move home.

            Additionally, you may want to read what I wrote. I am in favor of private gun ownership, open carry, and concealed carry. I also believe in training.

            Reply
            1. Republican?

              So, for 32 years you were a Californian and supported it’s Leftist government with your taxes and presence. A govt that believes in proficiency testing and other gun control methods, but now you are a South Dakotan that supports proficiency gun control methods?

              Republicans believe in the 2nd Amendment Rights, Democrats believe in limiting those rights through proficiency tests, etc.

              You’re no longer in Kansas (California), Toto..

              Reply
              1. Dicta

                Living in a state doesn’t mean you support everything that state government does. Come on, now, that’s really disingenuous.

                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  Clearly he supports the idea of having a proficiency test be required of someone to pass before they are allowed to carry a firearm. He thought Ca was so good he supported the state with his state income and property taxes for 32 years.

                  Another “Republican” who supports the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS of South Dakotans with a caveat of as long as the government controls those rights for everyone’s safety.

                  Reply
  8. Anonymous

    The most important right that we have from our Maker is life.

    If convicted criminals are a threat to society, they should still be in prison as it is a pipe dream of liberals to believe gun free zones/people work.

    Regarding law enforcement safety: The perceived threat to a cop remains the same regardless of ease of access to legal concealed carry. A cop has no way of knowing whether someone is armed or not and is forced to consider any person as being armed regardless.

    A person should have the right to have the ability to defend themselves, and their family, at all times as is protected in the 2nd Amendment.

    Reply
  9. Anon

    This legislative effort reminds me of a series of quotes from Sir Thomas More when his counter part tells him that he’d chop down every law in England to chase down the Devil. Sir Thomas More responded with this:
    “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

    “Giving” the State the power to permit gives the ol’ devil some benefit too (depending on how you view it); but the benefits protect us all and I hope everyone understands that. It isn’t the old west where good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black ones.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      How does a law abiding citizen having to pay a tax to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, protect us or them?

      The Founding Father’s, and the enemies of freedom, viewed the freedom of speech and press to be the most “dangerous” right. Should we require a concealed carry permit and a tax also to exercise that right so the state can protect us?

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.