Posted on 03/17/2012 5:04:58 AM PDT by rellimpank
When Gov. Dennis Daugaard first looked at a bill to let most South Dakotans carry concealed weapons without a permit, it looked good. Daugaard proclaims himself a proud supporter of Second Amendment rights and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. He was leaning toward signing the bill.
But the more he studied House Bill 1248, the more the governor had doubts. And by Friday, he had seen enough to veto the bill.
“When I looked at the bill, it really was a solution in search of a problem,” Daugaard said Friday. “The process for gaining a concealed carry permit is very simple and easily accomplished. I just don’t see this (bill) as something that would improve that by a great deal.”
Worse, the governor said the bill would make life more difficult for citizens and law enforcement alike. Instead of checking a permit during a stop, law enforcement might have to detail citizens while they run a background check.
But the bill’s supporters say Daugaard’s veto was misguided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rapidcityjournal.com ...
--I think I detect a typo here--
—ping—
Ever hear of the US Constitution, GOVERNOR!?!?!?!? The Second Amendment? How about your own state constitution? Maybe we should send him these....
The problem, you idiot, is government's constant encroachment on the freedoms every American is entitled to under the Constitution. It's a shame that freedom is such a scary word to our overlords.
Hey RINO mos if not all leo's run a license check BEFORE they get out of their car.
Pitiful excuse.
This was and is a bad bill. A wussified constitutional carry if you will. It is not constitutional carry, a bill that was introduced earlier in session and failed.
This bill is a legislative CYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bill in question requires a drivers license, so no Constitutional carry. South Dakota gun owners see it as bad also and recommend non passage.
The real key will be Monday veto day in the legislature, when they do not override the veto. Hopefully that will be the case.
This was and is a bad bill. A wussified constitutional carry if you will. It is not constitutional carry, a bill that was introduced earlier in session and failed.
This bill is a legislative CYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bill in question requires a drivers license, so no Constitutional carry. South Dakota gun owners see it as bad also and recommend non passage.
The real key will be Monday veto day in the legislature, when they do not override the veto. Hopefully that will be the case.
BAD dog double!!
I immediately saw that too.
Yo, Guv, what's the simple and easy process for getting a permit to speak? Or go to your choice of church?
I don’t know I could use a good lint brushing now and then...maybe it includes a massage with it that would be nice after a stressful stop with the police.
—the thought that flashed through my mind was a cop putting a racing stripe from head to toe on a -uh- “bosomy” lady with attention given to the chest area-—
That is the entire purpose of guaranteed rights. The solution to solve the problem is called civil war.
Can't see why. What property a citizen may or may not have on him during a traffic stop isn't germane to the purpose of the stop unless it somehow affects his driving.
“... Daugaard said Friday. “The process for gaining a concealed carry permit is very simple and easily accomplished.
Yo, Guv, what’s the simple and easy process for getting a permit to speak? Or go to your choice of church?”
*******************************************************
http://www.usacarry.com/south_dakota_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Wow, South Dakota is a “shall issue” state which looks pretty good to me. But what do I know, I live in the People’s Republic of Maryland where the only way I’ll ever be able to legally carry is for pending lawsuits to be successful. The Maryland Democrats in power would break into all houses and seize all firearms if they thought they could get away with that.
I don’t believe this article explains the issue well for most readers to understand why the Governor is reluctant to sign off on it, and why South Dakotan’s would agree with the Governor. That and of course the fact too few read beyond the headline much less the excerpt.
I read the entire article, and am still confused.
Going to look up the bill, and see if it then makes any sense to me.
Rapid City Editorial:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/mobile/article_fc273076-68a3-11e1-bf47-001871e3ce6c.html
Another link on the matter:
http://www.constantconservative.com/2012/carrying-concealed-without-permits
Is it the necessity of a drivers license that is objectionable? By eliminating the necessity of a drivers license the bill would be more acceptable?
—South Dakota is about as good as it gets, other than the prohibition on carry in all gov’t offices and establishments that get over 50% of income from alcohol sales, which keeps me out of or disarmed in a few restaurants-—
I don't vote in SD, but my fiancee does. Hey, maybe I can talk her into changing her place of residence to Wyoming now....
This is why I’ve been against all those “Voter Id “ laws that have been passed recently. In person voter-fraud lets you cast ONE tainted vote, and only if you know enough about another person to successfully impersonate them at the polls (You’ve always needed to show ID and proof of citizenship when registering to vote)
HOWEVER it sets the legal precedent that a government issued ID can be required when exercising a constitutional right, and that completely cuts the heart out of all the legal theory behind Constitutional Carry.
I hate to say it, but we’ve been our own worst enemy on this subject
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.