Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: South Dakota Governor Vetoes Concealed Carry Bill

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    South Dakota Governor Vetoes Concealed Carry Bill

    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

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Johnson City, TN
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    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
    What are the chances of getting enough votes to override the veto?

    And, dangit!!! That makes the second state in which a Constitutional Carry bill has been passed, only to be vetoed by the governor (Montana was the first one). Even more disappointing, this one was vetoed by a Republican governor .
    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    So, to summarize what the governor is saying in his veto statement:

    "This freedom stuff would be a huge inconvenience for you. Agents of the state would spend a significant amount of time figuring out whether or not you really deserve it, causing you tons of hassle. Therefore, by vetoing this bill, I'm really saving you lots of trouble. You should thank me for limiting this freedom stuff. You really don't want it."

    That's what I gathered from it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    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.
    Ummm...no. LOL

    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.
    I wonder how many Alaskans, Vermonters, Wyomingites, and Arizonans were arrested last year for unlawful concealment in another state due to an "honest misunderstanding" of that state's laws. Although a few recent arrests in New York have made the news, they are the exception, rather than the rule. Expecting citizens, under pain of imprisonment, to understand the rules and limitations of carrying with/without a permit within a state, but then trying to protect them from "honest misunderstandings" in other states is foolhardy at best.

    In any event, in my anecdotal experience, those who OC without a permit (or CC in constitutional-carry states), on average, have a better understanding of firearms carry laws than any other subgroup of the population, including LEOs.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-19-2012 at 06:53 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Governor Daugaard's veto was upheld in the house 27-40

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    So, to summarize what the governor is saying in his veto statement:

    "This freedom stuff would be a huge inconvenience for you. Agents of the state would spend a significant amount of time figuring out whether or not you really deserve it, causing you tons of hassle. Therefore, by vetoing this bill, I'm really saving you lots of trouble. You should thank me for limiting this freedom stuff. You really don't want it."

    That's what I gathered from it.
    It takes a 2/3 vote to override the veto. 27 to 40 was not enough.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    It takes a 2/3 vote to override the veto. 27 to 40 was not enough.
    It was 50-18 to pass, which would have overridden the veto. Half of the yes votes defected. That suggests that the passing vote was a sham designed to get some anti-gun legislators some pro-gun cred.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    It was 50-18 to pass, which would have overridden the veto. Half of the yes votes defected. That suggests that the passing vote was a sham designed to get some anti-gun legislators some pro-gun cred.
    Yep. I hope the good, firearms-owning citizens of South Dakota never let the scalawag legislators, or their constituents, forget this betrayal. They should all be forever marked with the scarlet "T" for "turncoat."
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sioux Falls,SD
    Posts
    67

    Post South Dakota Open Carry (SDOC) Sioux Falls Chapter

    Don't Worry guys, They may have won the fight but they have not won the war. We are in it for the long haul and things will change but it takes time. We can not let them Discourage us and break our will, we must stick with it and continue to fight for what is True and Right. We still have a few things up our sleeves......... Stay Tuned.... LOL
    "GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL"

  9. #9
    Regular Member XDSTEEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico
    Posts
    216
    We didn't lose anything and we had everything to gain. I think that the consitutional carry bill made it further this time than the other similar bills.
    Patrick Henry didn't say "Give me safety , or give me death". Liberty is what America is about.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •