Governor plans to veto permitless concealed carry. Fluorescent postcards to follow.

The Argus is reporting this AM that Governor Daugaard is leaning against HB 1156 (An act to allow a concealed pistol in the capitol with an enhanced concealed pistol permit), and definitely plans to veto this sessions’ big gun bill, House Bill 1072 (An act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol):

Gov. Dennis Daugaard said social media campaigns and stacks of petitions aren’t enough to change his mind on proposals that would expand the state’s concealed carry laws.


Daugaard reiterated his intention to veto the second bill, which aims to let qualified people carry a concealed pistol without a permit without fear of criminal charges.


As for carrying guns in the Capitol, the governor feels security there is sufficient.

Read it all here.

Looking at the roster of the people who voted against the House Bill 1072:

.. I’m not seeing a lot of people who I suspect would roll over and change their vote against the measure to override a gubernatorial veto.

And while I don’t think it matters to the Democrats, the one thing I notice is that many of the Republicans who are opposing the measure have had primary elections in the last couple of cycles, with their opponents aggressively backed by one of the groups pushing the hardest for the bill, the South Dakota Gun Owners’ group.

(Yes, the same SDGO group that just leafletted area Sheriffs for testifying in opposition of the same bill.)

The opposition of permitless carry in 2017 has enough Republicans in the legislature opposing it that overriding the Governor’s veto is probably not possible. As a result, I suspect HB 1072 is going to be a large arrow in SDGO’s quiver as they start designing their fluorescent postcards for the 2018 primary.

25 thoughts on “Governor plans to veto permitless concealed carry. Fluorescent postcards to follow.”

  1. While the SDGO can make an impact, who these moderate Daugaard Republicans need to worry about is the NRA.

    The NRA-ILA has been heavily pushing the Constitutional Carry bill and appears to be all in.

    JUNE 25th, 2016.

    6.4 Second Amendment – We oppose infringement of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and oppose further attempts to restrict private firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessory ownership.

  3. Kelly,

    Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this bill, let’s not misrepresent what the platform says:

    1) Infringement is an act of “limiting” by definition. The bill the Governor EXPANDS. Only a bill that would reduce what we currently have would be opposed to the Platform.

    2) This bill is not a “further attempt to restrict” but an EXPANSION.

    The platform was clear the status quo satisfactory which is what the Governor maintained.

    For the record, I am open to expansion of our gun rights beyond the status quo. However, when expansions include removing the ability of businesses, courthouses, capitols, day cares, etc to declare their space gun free, I discount these people when they talk on other issues.

    1. Troy, then there is the Constitution of South Dakota and elected officials oath of office to support said Constitution.

      Yet again, the governor will make Cory Heidelberger very happy.

    2. Troy, I copied and paste direct from the SDGOP page. Oops ! Additionally, did I miss a press release about your status within the party ?

      4.8 Historical Foundation – We support the teaching of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the South Dakota Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the historical role of faith and the Bible. We also support further emphasis on the principles and values upon which our nation was founded, such as a republican form of government and the benefits of capitalism.

      So am I to then conclude that we support the teaching of math but if we can muster a majority to see 2 + 2 = 5, them we shall merrily proceed ?

  4. I was going to say the same thing as Anon @1:05. The NRA is now firmly committed to the “offensive” expanding gun rights. NAGR and SDGO have been firmly in that camp from the get go. The governor should be concerned for people who were a part of his administration that want to seek an office. A move to the right by him might do them some good a long with his own reputation.

  5. Good for Governor Daugaard! Common Sense moderation of extremist agendas are what we need. Thank you Governor!

  6. The NRA has simply turned itself into the marketing arm of the Gun Industry. Fear drives sales. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment but lets just call all this nonsense what it is. I was a member of the NRA back in the 70’s but what it has morphed into today I would not consider supporting the NRA.

  7. Kelly,

    I have no idea what the point of your babble is. The Platform was clear the party position was opposition to restriction and infringement of the status quo. Your position of expansion and the Governor’s position of non-expansion are both consistent with the platform.

    Your assertion expansion is what the platform says is false (unless of course the dictionary definition of words are to be ignored and the definition can be made up to be what you want).

  8. Either the intentionally selected words of the 2nd Amendment mean what they say (“shall not be infringed”), or the Constitution itself means whatever those in power decide they want it to mean.

  9. Yes Joe they have meaning. My post is to point out Kelly’s misrepresentation of the Platform.

    And, since the current law has not been declared unconstitutional, it isn’t an unconstitutional infringement (the Court has ruled the Constitution must be taken in context of other clauses, ala the right to free speech doesn’t give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre). Thus, the Consitution argument falls flat unless you are talking about Constitutional lawsuit.

    Maybe a better example: The fact criminals can’t own firearms is an infringement and the words are clear “shall not be infringed.” Taken by itself there is no limit on who can own a gun period, including the criminally insane.

    You probably will ignore it but if you want a change on Constitutional Carry, I’d argue the merits of why concealed carry is good for the average citizen.

    1. Troy, you have now, twice, accused me of misrepresentation and once of babble. My first post was a simple cut and paste from SDGOP. My second, a question asking of clarity from leadership. My third, another cut and paste from SDGOP, a direct personal question of you and then an analogy of reasoning generated from your comments. It has been you babbling and attempting to represent from which some have read as a miss. I have no fight with you.

      I do know that crime, particularly in Sioux Falls, has risen to a point where it is now a campaign issue across many offices. Additionally, the rural nature of our state should be considered when one is in need of immediate protections when law enforcement might be many miles and many minutes away. As far as HB1156, I can agree that provided security from law enforcement may be sufficient. Otherwise, unsecured private and public areas (gun-free) environments does give me concern.

      Carry on… (pun)

      1. Not being able to conceal carry without a permit or not allowing firearms in certain locations is not an infringement upon your rights. So, yes the Constitution is the law of the land and no, your interpretation is not correct. As was pointed out by someone else much more eloquently than I can, many of these have already been interpreted by the courts.

        1. I don’t believe South Dakota’s Constitution has been challenged in this regard. It says the right is not to be denied, and does not restrict that right to open carry.

  10. Thank you SDGO’s for keeping a non-existent hypothetically deceptional constitutional delinquency front and and center while South Dakota struggles with real non-delusional budget and real life personnel issues.
    People matter; You don’t!

  11. Good job Governor!! We certainly don’t need any goons (either elected, or otherwise) packing heat in the state capitol.

    I’d vote for Daugaard again, if I could.

  12. The South Dakota Gun Owners seem to be looking out for the gun rights of South Dakota citizens. Would they support the rights of 30 to 40 legally armed Lakota men to stand around a Pennington County polling station in November of 2018?

  13. I am a gun owner. I am also a CC holder. In spite of my CC, I do believe there are certain situations in which it is inappropriate to carry. Does it make sense to tell someone who is consuming adult beverages in a drinking establishment that he/she cannot carry a gun? Probably. What possible reason could someone have to carry a gun into the capitol? Considering the need for security I really do not see why one would want and/or need to carry. Also considering the heated arguments people get into in the legislature, perhaps not allowing legislators to carry is a good idea. I also have no problem not carrying in a court. Some people see every restriction as an infringement. They are not.

    1. “What possible reason could someone have to carry a gun into the capitol?”

      Self defense.

      1. When referring to “capitol”, I am under the impression we are talking about a building. A building can be secured to be without weapons. It happens all of the time when one goes into a court session. I agree with the governor on this. The security is there so there is no need.

        1. The Texas capitol allows gun owners with a license to bypass security by scanning their LTC. It allows them to skip the line and avoid going through a metal detector. If it can go off without a hitch there, why are supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans so afraid of this?

          1. Because they are “anti-gun” Republicans who whine about being on fluorescent postcards. I hope the NRA correctly exposes them during the next election cycle, so that the SDGOs don’t have to take all of the heat. Refusing to be held accountable for liberal actions and votes should be another theme during the next election cycle.

Comments are closed.