South Dakota Open Carry (SDOC) kicks off campaign in Oppsition of Weapons Ban

[adam_SDOCsiouxfalls]

South Dakota Open Carry (SDOC) is kickin' off its campaign today in opposition of Sioux Falls "Catch ALL" Executive Order 07-29 which Bans weapons on City Property.

We ask for everyone to take a few mins. out of your day to write or call to the Sioux Falls Mayors office and Sioux Falls City Council to Respectfully Voice your opposition to Sioux Falls Executive Order 07-29.

Mayor Huether, you stated this past March at a public meeting that you are a 2A supporter and used that fact that you are a avid Hunter and own Weapons yourself. I hate to bust your Political bubble but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is for the citizens protection from criminals that want to rape, robb and murder them and their families, and for protection from tyrant and oppressive government. Our Right to Protect ourselves and our families does not vanish when we leave our homes and go to a park with our family, nor does it vanish when we step out on the sidewalk in front of our homes.

Sioux Falls Mayors office contact : http://www.siouxfalls.org/mayor.aspx

Sioux Falls City Council Contact: http://www.siouxfalls.org/council.aspx

Keep up to Date At: (SDOC) Sioux Falls Chapter FaceBook Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/South-Dakota-Open-Carry-Sioux-Falls-Chapter/307412979331213

 

[Grapeshot]

How does this fit with state preemption?

Any follow up?

 

[adam_SDOCsiouxfalls]

follow up on Sioux Falls Executive Order 07-29

As far as where this stands with SD preemption law, It would be up to a court if Executive order 07-29 violates SD Preemption Laws or not due to the fact that it is a "Policy" and not a "ordinance" but it could be argued that it directly violates the SD preemption Laws Intent and Loop-holes in the wording were used to Directly violate the State Law and that it is also a Violation of SD State Constitution Art. 6 sec. 24. We have advised the City of Sioux Falls on the very poor wording of this order and of the other implications. Sioux Falls has agreed it is written poorly and the City's Attorney Office is currently reviewing the order for changes or repeal. (We have yet to get a timeline on when this will be completed).
This order was intended to only apply to City Employees but due to the wording it applies to all Citizens also. The Sioux Falls City Councilor Greg Jamison Stated that this Order does not have the Force of Law on the Citizens and does not have the "Teeth" some people think it does, and I agree it does not have the Force of Law, Yet as I stated to many who started to Question me challanging this Order in the Beginning.
This Order Opens up law-abiding Citizens to being charged with other crimes for doing nothing illegal and for simply exercising their rights. My troubles with this order were spot on and Confirmed, when Sioux Falls Chief of Police doug Barthel Stated in the Argusleader on 5/18/2012 that if his officers ask you, a law-abiding Citizen that is exercising your right to bear arms legally to leave an area you are in and have a right to be in and you refuse their order to leave, you will be charged with disorderly conduct. Mr. Barthel was refering to Carnegie Town Hall but then also added City Parks and the Bike Trails.



Adam J. Turner

President
South Dakota Open Carry (SDOC)
Sioux Falls Chapter.

 

[Grapeshot]

A dilemma created under color of law and moving into territory clearly not intended. Good luck getting this worked out amicably - hopefully clearer heads will prevail.

 

[adam_SDOCsiouxfalls]

Guess we will see what happens, as we both know not to many Politicians have any common sense anymore.


Thank you for your support Grape Shot,




Adam