Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Dakota HB 1248 Needs Governor's Signature by March 19(constitutional carry)
1911forum.com ^ | 14 March, 2012 | Bonzer Wolf

Posted on 03/15/2012 8:39:57 AM PDT by marktwain

South Dakota HB 1248 is on Gov. Daugaard’s desk awaiting his signature. He has until March 19 to either sign or veto it.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) strongly support this bill. I have been in touch with one of the co-sponsors of HB 1015, which was killed in committee. Rep. Betty Olson, SD District 28B told me that she took the original bill and added the requirement that residents must be 18 and hold a SD drivers license to carry a firearm without a state issued permit, because it was the only way to get the Bill out of committee.

Rep Olson said she added that provision to address the concerns of law enforcement who were worried about motorcycle gangs coming into Sturgis, SD for the annual bike rally. Concealed carry permits from 29 states are honored in South Dakota at this time.

Rep. Olson make it clear to me that she doesn’t believe it is Constitutional to require citizens to obtain a concealed weapons permit from the State in order to be keep and bear firearms. Rep. Olson concedes that HB 1248 is not perfect, but believes it’s a step in the right direction. It’s the best Bill that could get passed after HB 1015 (Constitutional Carry for all citizens) was killed in committee.

On March 7, GOA sent out an alert to South Dakota members concerning SD HB 1248:

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.

Click here http://sd.gov/governor/contact.aspx to access the Governor’s official web page , where you can write and make your views known.

I urge all residents of South Dakota and law abiding citizens who support the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, to contact Governor Daugaard. Here’s an example of an email from GOA.

Dear Gov. Daugaard:

I would urge you to sign HB 1248.

This is an important piece of legislation that allows 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.

Criminals don’t wait in lines to get permits. They are always able to get their hands on firearms — even to the point of smuggling them into prisons.

So please reaffirm my Second Amendment right to bear arms by signing this important bill, HB 1248. Gun Owners of America will keep me updated as to what happens. Thank you.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: banglist; carry; constitution; sd
Governor Daugaard still has a few days to sign or veto the bill.
1 posted on 03/15/2012 8:40:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Governor Daugaard still has a few days to sign or veto the bill. “

What happens if he does nothing? Is that a “pocket veto” or does it become law w/o his signature?


2 posted on 03/15/2012 9:29:55 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

If he does nothing, the bill becomes law.


3 posted on 03/15/2012 9:56:48 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is not Constitutional carry, which carries no requirements. This has a requirement of a drivers license.

The real Constitutional carry failed to pass just a few weeks ago.

As I previously stated on another thread, same subject, this is better than nothing, but with the ridiculous over reach regarding the federal ID card which state drivers licenses are on track to become with some notable state exceptions, this is not a good thing.


4 posted on 03/15/2012 10:20:05 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita
If the bill becomes law, it is likely that the drivers license requirement would be challenged. Given past court precedence, the requirement for a drivers license would likely be ruled to be unconstitutional.
5 posted on 03/15/2012 10:29:18 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If the bill becomes law, it is likely that the drivers license requirement would be challenged. Given past court precedence, the requirement for a drivers license would likely be ruled to be unconstitutional.

Just about as soon as similar legislation is introduced to require the same driver's license to "enjoy the privileges" of the other "rights" promised in the Bill of Licensed Privileges, I'd reckon.

6 posted on 03/15/2012 12:57:59 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: archy

We have been winning by increments for the past 30 years on this front. We have constitutional carry in four states with legislation being considered in a dozen more.

Of course, if we just give up, we have already lost.


7 posted on 03/15/2012 1:32:02 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
We have been winning by increments for the past 30 years on this front. We have constitutional carry in four states with legislation being considered in a dozen more.

Of course, if we just give up, we have already lost.

Not necessarily:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

- Norton v. Shelby County, US Supreme Court Decision, 118 US 425, 442 (in 1886)

8 posted on 03/16/2012 6:16:32 AM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson