Posted on 03/16/2012 2:36:14 PM PDT by marktwain
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 16, 2011 CONTACT: Joe Kafka or Tony Venhuizen at 605-773-3212
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard has vetoed the following bill:
HB1248 – An Act to provide for exceptions from certain misdemeanor offenses related to possession of handguns.
For more information about this and other bills, please visit www.legis.state.sd.us
Note: A copy of Governor Daugaard’s veto message follows.
March 16, 2012 The Honorable Val Rausch Speaker of the House of Representatives 500 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
I herewith return to you House Bill 1248 with my VETO. House Bill 1248 is entitled, “An Act to provide for exceptions from certain misdemeanor offenses relating to possession of handguns.”
I support our citizens’ right to possess a concealed handgun under our current laws. I ask you to sustain this veto because HB 1248 creates an exception to South Dakota’s firm, fair and reasonable concealed carry permit process. This exception weakens the reasonable protections currently in place, and it could lead to confusion and to longer and more frequent detainment of innocent citizens who choose to carry a concealed weapon.
South Dakota law already allows law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. The simple, straightforward permit process allows law enforcement to ensure that those who carry concealed weapons do not fall under one of the state’s narrow exceptions. Each year, locally-elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history. Under this bill, those who are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon would no longer be informed of that fact. Understandably, law enforcement officials from across South Dakota have objected to this bill.
This bill will also result in longer and more frequent detention of those who legally carry a concealed weapon. Absent a permit requirement, law enforcement would not be able to ascertain whether an individual is “otherwise eligible to be issued a permit to carry a concealed pistol.” If this bill becomes law, innocent citizens could be detained by law enforcement and subjected to time-consuming criminal and mental health background checks.
Even if this bill becomes law, those who wish to conceal a weapon in another state would, in almost all cases, still be required to have a concealed carry permit. Repealing that requirement in South Dakota could lead to our citizens being arrested in other states because of an honest misunderstanding as to whether they are lawfully entitled to carry a concealed weapon in that state.
This bill is a solution searching for a problem. South Dakota’s current permit process is simple and straightforward, and permits can be obtained in a matter of minutes. The current process preserves Second Amendment rights while respecting concerns for public safety, in particular the safety of law enforcement officers who put themselves at risk to protect us.
It is paramount that our state protects the rights of our citizens while at the same time protecting the lives of our citizens. I believe our current laws appropriately protect both interests, and I respectfully request that you sustain my veto.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Daugaard Governor
He does not seem to grasp the idea of limited government:
"If this bill becomes law, innocent citizens could be detained by law enforcement and subjected to time-consuming criminal and mental health background checks."
SD is not “Shall Issue?”
Can any South Dakotans explain the bill and his reasoning for vetoing it? His letter sounded like it was written by a third grader - or a politician.
South Dakota has one of the best state Shall Issue laws. About 7.5 percent of the population already has carry permits.
Reasonably, the legislature said: Why should you have to get a permit to exercize a constitutional right? They passed this version of Constitutional carry by a little less than 2/3 majority in the Senate.
Why did Governor Daugaard veto it? Mostly pressure from the MSM and the law enforcement associations, I would guess.
The idea that he should not pass the law, because some overzealous law enforcement types might illegally detain citizens is bizarre.
citizens should be citizens, with a comma.
“They passed this version of Constitutional carry by a little less than 2/3 majority in the Senate.”
Time for SD voters to vote out those who didn’t support the bill, along with the Governor.
Problem solved.
“Friends don’t let friends vote Democrap”.
So this was a “constitutional carry bill” then? Wow.
It’s appalling that a Leftist loon state like Vermont can have constitutional carry in place for decades and a fly-over state’s governor still can’t stomach it.
It is very close to constitutional carry. Anyone with a SD drivers license, who could legally possess a firearm, could carry it concealed.
Thanks.
South Dakota is a wonderful state with wonderful gun laws!
“Unfortunately, Governor Daugaard is a Republican. “
Tell us just how that is “unfortunate?” There are a host of “Republicans” that need to be turned out of office. Daugaard is just one of many.
“The Gov. believe it would mess with the reciprocity agreements we have with other states.”
If true, this is a very interesting argument which needs to be considered in other states as well.
That is, reciprocity agreements somewhat “fix” the law in place, and that might be a problem. It’s almost a mathematical problem.
For example, say two states both have good, unrestrictive gun laws *and* a reciprocity agreement between them.
1) If one of the states gets a liberal, Democrat, anti-gun majority in the future, they may cancel the agreement.
2) If either state in the agreement changes its gun laws “for better or worse”, the reciprocity agreement might have to be renegotiated. A big hassle.
3) Even if two states have a reciprocity agreement, and they share a border, anyone crossing over that border *also* comes under federal jurisdiction, because that involves “interstate commerce” in its purest form. This means despite the agreement, the feds can horn in, likely to declare something legal in both states to be illegal in federal law.
I’m not saying that any of these things would be disastrous, just that reciprocity agreements need to take them in to account.
Cops had better have probable cause to detain someone for LEGAL concealed carry. AZ recently passed "permission-less" concealed carry. It is a good thing to get the government out of the business of telling us how we can carry. No one is harmed by mode of carry. If SD police become heavy handed and start detaining people, the SD legislature can inact legislation to address it.
The govn'r is showing his totalitarian tendencies.
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.