Concealed Carry measure passes Senate 23-11

Senate Bill 47, an act tor epeal and revise certain provisions regarding permits to carry a concealed pistol came to the Senate Floor today, and passed rather handily on a 23-11 vote.

Is this going to be the measure that Governor Noem signs to legalize permitless carry in the state?

34 thoughts on “Concealed Carry measure passes Senate 23-11”

  1. Does this mean the Wild West rides again? This will be welcomed on every reservation and off. The law is the law for everybody.

    1. Secretary Barnett would have to be in the office to have an opinion. Check Facebook he’s busy skiing at Terry Peak instead of working.

      1. That’s a cheap shot. Looks like he took his kids skiing over the weekend and posted the picture last night. But slander tends to suit you better.

      2. Ah, so he doesn’t get any vacations? Do you get vacations or don’t you even have a job?

        Try to post something substantial if you don’t like the guy.

  2. The days of Wild Bill Janklow (oops, I meant Wild Bill Hitchcock) and Calamity Jane are back again. Head for them thar hills.

  3. What do law enforcement professionals say about this? Did the heads of the Highway Patrol and DCI testify in favor? Did the Sheriff’s Association or Fraternal Order of Police jump on board?
    I like guns and have no problem with the current system. What I foresee is cops answering a live shooter call and seeing a dozen armed people with no idea who’s the bad guy with the gun and who’s the armed citizen thinking they’re going to save the day. Every police encounter will now have a higher possibility of a gun in the mix. There’s no need to ratchet up the situation.
    Last night in Pierre:

  4. As Americans we do not disarm our citizens for the benefit of our law enforcement community.

    1. How does a concealed carry card equal disarming? If you are not a felon, go spend the 10 bucks and get one. I’ve got more guns than I know what to do with and love the second amendment. But i have no issue with needing a permit to carry concealed.

        1. See there’s this court, the highest court in all the land, created by the constitution, that has the ultimate decision making power to decide what actions and laws are or are not constitutional. You can certainly argue that a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional. The constitution also gives you that right. With certain restrictions of course, that have also been upheld by the Supreme Court. But the issue of concealed carry permits has, by default, already been decided. Simply saying “it’s unconstiutional” ultimately means nothing. But good luck with that argument in front of any judge.

  5. I’m ok with needing a permit. However, I would like more mechanism’s for obtaining one. Why can’t I obtain one from my local police department, Game Fish &Parks office or other entity that can conduct a criminal records search. I have absolutely no reason to go into my counties Sheriff’s Office. I hunt and fish and live in a municipality where I have other business.

  6. I’ve never understood why otherwise freedom loving Americans see no problem with our government blatantly ignoring the fact that the constitution clearly states the right to keep and bear (that means to have on your person) shall not be infringed. The wording is perfectly clear.

    1. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      One of the issues I have with people making arguments is they insist certain things are in an amendment that is not addressed. I currently have a CC. I do not have a problem with having a CC, at least while I am in public. A CC is a way to assure that the person who has it at least is not an obvious threat to anybody. Does the amendment say anything about requiring a permit for a CC? No. Does requiring a permit to CC infringe upon anything mentioned in the amendment? No. So I see nothing unconstitutional about this. You may argue all you want about whether requiring a permit is a good idea. There are good arguments on both sides. But to say it is unconstitutional is a stretch.

    1. Yes, which was understood at the time to refer to all able bodied men, not a government agency.

    2. And “regulated” did not mean controlled with regulations; it meant familiar with the usage of weapons.

    3. It goes on to say “. . . the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This statement indicates that there is a right apart from the necessity of a “well regulated Militia”, and because of that necessity, that existing right shall not be infringed. It does not say, “Because of the necessity of having a well regulated Militia, the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” That would make a difference. Also, it does not state that people can only keep and bear arms if they are part of a well regulated Militia.

      All that being said, I am not sure how I feel about everybody being able to walk around with concealed weapons without having to be vetted. This is a toughy!

  7. I’m confident that the Governor will be smart enough to use her veto pen on this.

    By the way, keep and bear arms has nothing to do with concealing arms.

  8. 13 states currently have constitutional carry. Most have added it in recent years, but Alaska has had theirs since 2003 and Vermont has never required a permit to carry concealed. Neighboring states of N. Dakota and Wyoming have CC. I have not heard of any bloodbath occurring in any of those CC states, and Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Seems a lot of people have an unsubstantiated fear of this issue, no facts to support their fear.

  9. Tell you what, the second you put a fee on registering to vote and you have to pay to renew every few years, then I’ll be more inclined to accept a fee on my right to keep and bear arms.

    1. That has already been addressed and found to be unconstitutional. A CC permit costing a few bucks is not taking your arms. You can, by the way, carry it on the outside with no permit.

      1. It doesn’t take my arms but it is an INFRINGEMENT on my right to keep and bear arms. I capitalized infringement because that word was intentionally included in the amendment by our founders and is intentionally ignored in policy debates and judicial rulings.

        1. Sorry, there is not INFRINGEMENT. According to Merriam Webster infringed is defined as: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. You are not having your right to bear arms encroached upon. You can have all you want. You can carry them in the open. If you get a CC permit, you can carry it under your coat or in your underwear if you want. But your right to bear arms are not infringed.

    2. Never gonna happen. Democrats think it is unconscionable to just require that you prove you are who you say you are to vote.

  10. Interesting that Senator Schoenbeck provided one of the anti-gun votes. Does he think guns are only for hunting?

  11. This cop, has always assumed that EVERYONE is already carrying. That way, I don’t let my guard down with anyone.

Comments are closed.