Category: Uncategorized

Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit Before Legislative Rules Review Committee

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs and SD Legislative Sponsor Tom Brunner announced today that as of July 1, 2015, South Dakota has begun the process of implementing the program to meet certain other state’s weapons requirements for individuals who have successfully completed a qualifying handgun course and have passed a fingerprint based background check. The enhanced concealed carry option does not replace or affect South Dakota’s existing concealed carry permits, it simply provides an additional and voluntary option for our citizens that wish to satisfy additional heightened requirements of certain other states.

During the last legislative session the South Dakota Legislature enacted an enhanced concealed carry option in order to allow qualified South Dakotans to meet the requirements of the other States carry law for when they travel. South Dakota’s current permit law remains in place for which South Dakota has reciprocity with the following 26 states that recognize our current concealed carry permit: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The administrative rules have been filed with Legislative Research Council for the approval by the Rules Review Committee and that hearing is scheduled for July 20, 2015, 10:00 a.m. at the Capitol in Pierre.

In the Fall of 2015, National Rifle Association (NRA) certified instructors may begin taking courses provided by the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) to begin the enhanced concealed carry including the use of force. NRA certified instructors completing the DCI course may offer a qualifying handgun course which includes the safe and responsible use of handguns, use of force and self-defense, and live-fire training. Members of the public who have successfully completed the qualifying handgun may then apply to the local sheriff for the enhanced permit. Applicants must authorize a fingerprint based background check and present proof that the applicant successfully completed a qualifying handgun course. The optional enhanced permit will cost $100 plus fees for processing the background check. The standard concealed pistol permit will remain unchanged and continued to be issued in addition to the enhanced permit.

Attorney General Jackley Joins Other Attorneys General to Protect Religious Freedom

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley and 14 other State Attorneys General announced today they have sent a letter to Congressional leaders urging them to take steps to protect the tax-exempt status of nonprofit religious organizations. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. was asked if religious-affiliated institutions could have their tax-exempt status revoked if they opposed same-sex marriage, Verrilli said “it’s certainly going to be an issue.”

“The newly recognized federal constitutional right to same- sex marriage must and can peaceably coexist with other longstanding constitutional rights of freedom of religion and speech. There is no need to infringe upon either individual or religious freedoms in carrying out the directive of the U.S. Supreme Court. As Attorney General I will work to both ensure common sense solutions and vigorously protect the right to freedom of religion,” said Jackley.

The letter states that by stripping tax-exempt status from religious organizations in this way- a severe consequence that could force groups to exit the public square- would be an unprecedented assertion of governmental power over religious exercise. The letter asks Congress to modify the Internal Revenue Code to prevent the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of nonprofit religious organization that disagrees with the decision in Obergefell.

Those signing on to the letter were Attorneys General from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

-30-

Religious Lib Let t 15

From KELOland, Attorney General Marty Jackley notes something specific in the argument over same-sex marriage in SD:

Jackley said Thursday that the constitutional right to marry that’s now guaranteed to same-sex couples must coexist with the constitutional right of freedom of religion for county employees.

Read it here.

Coming from the person who would defend the state in a lawsuit, that’s a significant statement.

From the Associated Press:

A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Read it here.

Is this the next fight?

Bosworth Sentenced in Election Law Violation Case

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Annette Bosworth, 43, Sioux Falls, was sentenced to 2 years for each of the 6 counts for offering false or forged instrument for filing and 2 years for each of the 6 counts for perjury. All counts to be suspended with 3 years of probation including 500 hours of community service, cost of prosecution to the County and court cost of $104 for each count.

“A citizen grand jury and jury have determined that Annette Bosworth has violated state election law enacted by our legislature to protect the integrity of our elections in South Dakota. I respect today’s sentence because jail is meant primarily for public safety, not necessarily for people whose conduct has crossed the line of exasperation to the general public,” said Jackley. “I join in the Court’s recognition coming from those that know Dr. Bosworth best, her medical patients, that she is capable of helping them, and I hope that she will now take advantage of this sentence and focus on such an important opportunity.”

On April 5, 2014, the Attorney General’s Office received an affidavit from the South Dakota Secretary of State challenging certain signatures on Bosworth’s nominating petitions. Bosworth was indicted in June 19, 2014, on multiple counts of perjury and filing false election documents for attesting to voter signatures for her nomination petitions for United States Senate while she was out of the country. On May 27, 2015, Bosworth was convicted on all twelve counts by a unanimous jury. The case was investigated by the Division of Criminal Investigation and prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office.
-30-

I was taking my dad grocery shopping today, and had the #BozTrial running in the background this afternoon.

I don’t think she did herself any good with that campaign-speech like statement to the court. And that was evidenced with the admonishment the Judge gave her from the bench.  Ultimately, he gave her 2 years on each count to run concurrently. 3 years probation. 500 Hours community service – specifically in South Dakota. No fines.

I don’t think anyone expected jail time, although I thought Judge Brown would give her a token stay just to underline the point on her behavior. But, I don’t think her sentence is a walk in the park either.

What do you think – was this fair?

Anyone wagering or speculating on Annette Bosworth’s Jail Sentence today?

I think she will end up with some minor time; 30-60 days served on weekends, just to send a message.

Your thoughts?

Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 69 Validated by Secretary of State

Pierre, SD – Referendum petitions for Senate Bill 69, “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding elections and election petitions” have been validated and filed with the SD Secretary of State’s office. The referral process required that Senate Bill 69 needed 13,871 signatures in order to be referred to the vote of the citizens of South Dakota in the November 2016 general election.

According to state statute 2-1-16 the Secretary of State’s office is required to perform a 5% random sampling of the signatures submitted. The random sampling process was overseen and reviewed by Secretary of State staff to check the signatures for completeness and to ensure the signatures were registered voters in the county they stated on the petition.  Following the sampling, it was determined that 14,179 signatures were valid.

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs stated, “The referral process demonstrates that citizens who are willing to participate and work hard can ensure their voices will have an opportunity to be heard at the ballot box.” 

This referendum petition will be Referred Law 19.

#30#

State Board on Geographic Names votes 4-1 to recommend keeping name of Harney Peak.

— Bob Mercer (@pierremercer) June 29, 2015

Attorney General Jackley Joins Western State Attorneys General to Challenge EPA on Waters of the United States

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley joined with Attorneys General from twelve other states in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over the EPA’s new rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Approximately 35 States have filed comments in opposition and several other State Attorneys General are similarly filing lawsuits.

“The EPA is overstepping its Congressional authority and seizing rights specifically reserved to the States,” Jackley said. “The EPA is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation.”

In their Complaint, the states contend the new definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) violates provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution.

The States assert that the EPA’s new rule inappropriately broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the States have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management. The States argue that the burdens created by the new EPA requirements on waters and lands are harmful to the States and will negatively affect agriculture economic development.

The new rule greatly expands and brings numerous isolated bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps with the result that landowners will have to seek additional federal permits or face substantial fines and federal criminal enforcement actions.

The States are seeking to have the rule vacated and the EPA and Corps enjoined from enforcing the new definition of WOTUS.

Participating in the filing are the attorneys general from the states of: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.