Governor nixes concealed weapons permit bill

Rapid City Journal ^ | 17 mar 2012

[wita]

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? First question, yes, among other things. Second question, not necessarily.

The requirement for a drivers license makes the bill somewhat redundant since any requirement over and above no requirements renders the bill not a constitutional carry bill like exists in the state of Vermont.

The license requirement meets one of those necessary for the concealed carry permit, which then makes the bill redundant, and for that and other reasons the Governor vetoed the bill and fortunately the legislators did not try and override the veto.

One of the many reasons anti gunners wanted this particular bill was besides the license requirement there were a couple of issues regarding police doing background checks on traffic stops, I’m not sure what generated that, but the potential, was enough to make the legislature nervous. IMHO the only way to go is Vermont style concealed carry.

Government requirements only start problems, and unforeseen consequences down stream. Unfortunately there are enough anti gun folks in positions of influence which is why the earlier true constitutional carry bill introduced by my congressman was killed (the bill, not the congressman)in the senate

[rockinqsranch]

Makes sense. Thanks for that.