PDA

View Full Version : South Dakota Passes Constitutional Concealed Carry Law


NotEnufGarage
03-06-2012, 6:32 AM
Way to go SD!

Excerpt -

Monday, March 5, 2012 at 8:37AM by Bonzer Wolf


House Bill 1248, passed the South Dakota Legislature last Tuesday awaits Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s signature or veto.

If Gov. Daugaard signs the law, South Dakotans will bypass a layer of bureaucracy, including a background check and fee, before being able to carry a concealed weapon.

Full article at - http://www.bonzerwolf.com/today/2012/3/5/south-dakota-passes-constitutional-concealed-carry-law.html

Decoligny
03-06-2012, 7:12 AM
Gotta love a law that has less than 70 words total.

South Dakota HB 1015

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for exceptions from certain misdemeanor offenses relating to possession of handguns.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The provisions of §§ 22-14-9, 22-14-9.1, 22-14-9.2 and 22-14-10 do not apply to any person who is otherwise in compliance with all other statutes of this state relative to the possession or use of handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

************************************************** ***************

Referenced Laws:

22-14-9. Carrying pistol or revolver without a permit--Misdemeanor. Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or parole agent acting under color of authority, who:
(1) Carries a pistol or revolver, loaded or unloaded, concealed on or about his or her person without a permit as provided in chapter 23-7; or
(2) Carries a pistol or revolver, loaded or unloaded, concealed in any vehicle while operating the vehicle, without a permit as provided in chapter 23-7;
is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

22-14-9.1. Person possessing concealed pistol to have physical possession of valid permit--Violation as petty offense--Charge dismissed. No person may possess a concealed pistol in accordance with chapter 23-7 or this chapter unless that person also has in his or her physical possession a valid South Dakota permit to carry a concealed pistol or a permit effective pursuant to § 23-7-7.3. Any violation of this section is a petty offense. However, if within twenty-four hours of being charged with a violation of this section, the person produces a permit to carry a concealed pistol which was valid at the time of the alleged offense in the office of the officer making the demand, the charge shall be dismissed.

22-14-9.2. Holders of permits from reciprocal states subject to South Dakota laws--Misdemeanor. Any person who is permitted to carry a concealed pistol in a state with which the secretary of state has entered into a reciprocity agreement pursuant to §§ 23-7-7.3, 22-14-9.1, 22-14-9.2, 23-7-7, 23-7-7.1, and 23-7-8 may carry a concealed pistol in this state if the permit holder carries the pistol in compliance with the laws of this state. Any violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

22-14-10. Lawful uses of unloaded pistols or revolvers--Concealment--Exempt from permit requirement. The provisions of § 22-14-9 do not apply to any person carrying any unloaded pistol or revolver for the purpose of, or in connection with, any lawful use, if the unloaded pistol or revolver is carried:
(1) In the trunk or other closed compartment of a vehicle; or
(2) In a closed container which is too large to be effectively concealed on the person or within the person's clothing. The container may be carried in a vehicle or in any other manner.
No person who complies with this section may be required to obtain a permit for the lawful uses described in this section.

**************************************************

The article linked above states: Anyone with a valid South Dakota driver’s license who isn’t disqualified from carrying a concealed weapon – including convicted felons, people with a “history of violence” and people with mental illness – will be able to carry a concealed weapon without the permit under the state law and the U.S. Constitution.

This can't be correct. You have to be able to drive a car in order to carry a gun?

The bolded section in particular when taken in context with the new bill looks like an out of state person, as long as they abide by all the other handgun laws of South Dakota, is exempted from the concealed carry license requirement too.

Untamed1972
03-06-2012, 7:18 AM
Hell Yeah! :thumbsup:

HumGuns
03-06-2012, 7:27 AM
Far from 'constitutional' carry, a license is still needed; a SD driver's license.

Lives_In_Fresno
03-06-2012, 7:42 AM
Far from 'constitutional' carry, a license is still needed; a SD driver's license.

I must have missed that part...What is it?

I saw that holders of permits from states having reciprocity agreements can CC in SD. So, those people don't likely have an SD DL.

Untamed1972
03-06-2012, 7:58 AM
Section 1. The provisions of §§ 22-14-9, 22-14-9.1, 22-14-9.2 and 22-14-10 do not apply to any person who is otherwise in compliance with all other statutes of this state relative to the possession or use of handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

That bolded part is kind of confusing, because one of the "referenced laws" is the one about out of state permits. So wouldn't that mean if you are otherwise in compliance (ie not a prohibited person) that a permit is not required. I dont see anywhere in the law where it states one must posess a SD DL?

SilverTauron
03-06-2012, 8:29 AM
Leave it to the press to leave out important details about South Dakota law.

For one, the minimum age to acquire a drivers license in this state is 14.Ill assume if you are still reading this that you have recovered from any fainting episodes brought on by that revelation.Now for the logical reason;towns in South Dakota are isolated in ways many urban Americans simply cannot fathom. In the northwest part of the state near Wyoming 50 miles between population centers is not uncommon. Sending Junior out for milk at the 'corner store' in this part of America usually requires use of the family car to do so.

Second, the criterion needed to acquire a permit to carry means driving the required distance to the nearest sherrif's office, filling out an NICS background check form, and paying the $10 fee on the spot. One walks out with a valid temporary permit to carry the moment the fee is paid, and the permanent CCW permit is mailed to the recipient approximately 7 days later.

The problem we had before this bill was passed is that the state law was mum on the concept of open carry versus concealed carry when a citizen has a permit. A friend of mine bought a Glock 23 and holds a CCW permit, and told me he open carried on occasion. I argued that he needed to keep that piece hidden to avoid a brandishing charge, as the South Dakota statue on that point is very broad. Brandishing can be interpreted as simply showing the weapon to another person in public, which is generally unavoidable with open carry. Thus, the dilemma-is one legal when open carrying, or is one brandishing? Does a CCW mean you HAVE to conceal the weapon, or can one still open carry as desired?

These questions were resolved by this legislative assembly, so that a citizen who decides to open carry won't face brandishing charges or loss of his permit should a LEO get bent out of shape on the subject.

Decoligny
03-06-2012, 9:26 AM
Leave it to the press to leave out important details about South Dakota law.

For one, the minimum age to acquire a drivers license in this state is 14.Ill assume if you are still reading this that you have recovered from any fainting episodes brought on by that revelation.Now for the logical reason;towns in South Dakota are isolated in ways many urban Americans simply cannot fathom. In the northwest part of the state near Wyoming 50 miles between population centers is not uncommon. Sending Junior out for milk at the 'corner store' in this part of America usually requires use of the family car to do so.

Second, the criterion needed to acquire a permit to carry means driving the required distance to the nearest sherrif's office, filling out an NICS background check form, and paying the $10 fee on the spot. One walks out with a valid temporary permit to carry the moment the fee is paid, and the permanent CCW permit is mailed to the recipient approximately 7 days later.

The problem we had before this bill was passed is that the state law was mum on the concept of open carry versus concealed carry when a citizen has a permit. A friend of mine bought a Glock 23 and holds a CCW permit, and told me he open carried on occasion. I argued that he needed to keep that piece hidden to avoid a brandishing charge, as the South Dakota statue on that point is very broad. Brandishing can be interpreted as simply showing the weapon to another person in public, which is generally unavoidable with open carry. Thus, the dilemma-is one legal when open carrying, or is one brandishing? Does a CCW mean you HAVE to conceal the weapon, or can one still open carry as desired?

These questions were resolved by this legislative assembly, so that a citizen who decides to open carry won't face brandishing charges or loss of his permit should a LEO get bent out of shape on the subject.

The driver's license requirement appears to be a complete fabrication made up by the reporter. I just looked through all the South Dakota firearms laws that I could find. Nowhere in the South Dakota Codified Laws can I find a reference to the requirement to have a South Dakota Driver's License to get a permit.

What happens if you have a condition that keeps you from being able to drive? Isn't there a South Dakota ID Card that would be considered a comparable substitute?

The new law apparently will also apply to out of state visitors. Otherwise they would not have listed 22-14-9.2 in the new law. Does this mean that they want any out of state visitor to get a South Dakota Driver's License? I highly doubt that.

Here is the Secretary of State website:

http://sdsos.gov/content/viewcontent.aspx?cat=adminservices&pg=/adminservices/concealedpistolpermits.shtm

POLICESTATE
03-06-2012, 9:28 AM
It's great that another state is going CC, but all the legal mumbo jumbo could be cleaned up.

Decoligny
03-06-2012, 10:00 AM
Nutshell version with all the legal "mumbo jumbo" cleaned up.

Review South Dakota Codified Laws section 22-14 which deals with unlawful use of weapons.

Don't commit any of the offenses listed and you can legally carry concealed once this law passes.

Don't possess a gun with altered serial number
Don't possess a "controlled weapon"
Don't recklessly discharge a firearm
Don't possess firearm while intoxicated
Don't conceal with intent to commit a felony
Don't commit a felony while armed
Don't possess a firearm if you have a prior conviction for violent crime of certain drug related offenses (15 year prohibition)
Don't possess a firearm if convicted of DV
Don't give firearm to prohibited persons
Don't shoot at occupied structures from a motor vehicle
Don't shoot from a moving vehicle in municipality
Don't possess firearm in courthouse

warkaj
03-06-2012, 10:06 AM
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

IVC
03-06-2012, 10:42 AM
I must have missed that part...What is it?


It's a small, laminated document used as a permit to operate a vehicle, but that's not important now :).

SilverTauron
03-06-2012, 10:50 AM
The driver's license requirement appears to be a complete fabrication made up by the reporter. I just looked through all the South Dakota firearms laws that I could find. Nowhere in the South Dakota Codified Laws can I find a reference to the requirement to have a South Dakota Driver's License to get a permit.

What happens if you have a condition that keeps you from being able to drive? Isn't there a South Dakota ID Card that would be considered a comparable substitute?

The new law apparently will also apply to out of state visitors. Otherwise they would not have listed 22-14-9.2 in the new law. Does this mean that they want any out of state visitor to get a South Dakota Driver's License? I highly doubt that.

Here is the Secretary of State website:

http://sdsos.gov/content/viewcontent.aspx?cat=adminservices&pg=/adminservices/concealedpistolpermits.shtm

I have never heard of such a requirement either, and as you have stated there is no passage of law which requires it. The requirement to apply for a South Dakota permit to carry is for two forms of government ID, one of them being a picture ID & evidence of residency such as a utility bill or military orders.One typically uses a driver's license to satisfy the picture ID requirement, which may be why the reporter wrote the story the way they did.

Decoligny
03-06-2012, 11:05 AM
I have never heard of such a requirement either, and as you have stated there is no passage of law which requires it. The requirement to apply for a South Dakota permit to carry is for two forms of government ID, one of them being a picture ID & evidence of residency such as a utility bill or military orders.One typically uses a driver's license to satisfy the picture ID requirement, which may be why the reporter wrote the story the way they did.

And since they won't have to have a permit anymore, they won't need to have any more ID than is required to obtain a handgun in the firstplace.

So, technically, someone who purchased a handgun 15 years ago, and hasn't had a driver's license for the past 10 years will still be able to carry concealed.

Don't know if SD is a stop and identify state, so he may even be able to carry concealed without even possessing any ID at all.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-06-2012, 11:29 AM
That makes mroe sense, otherwise the legislature adding the out of state permits wouldn't make sense.

It seems like if you have a valid out of state permit that also has reciprocity with SD, as long as you follow the list of laws above, no permit nor DL is needed.

Untamed1972
03-06-2012, 11:40 AM
That makes mroe sense, otherwise the legislature adding the out of state permits wouldn't make sense.

It seems like if you have a valid out of state permit that also has reciprocity with SD, as long as you follow the list of laws above, no permit nor DL is needed.

The way I'm reading is that those "referenced laws" (ie out of state permit reciprocity for example) no longer apply, or you are exempted from so long as you are in compliance with remaining law regard when/where you can carry.

Or simply stated, follow the few rules that are left, and dont be a prohibited person and you can carry w/o a permit regardless of where you are from.

SilverTauron
03-06-2012, 3:52 PM
Don't know if SD is a stop and identify state, so he may even be able to carry concealed without even possessing any ID at all.

It is not, the decision to inform the officer one is armed is up to the citizen's discretion. It would be wise to do so if open carry is being done, but its not legally required.

rugershooter
03-06-2012, 5:08 PM
And since they won't have to have a permit anymore, they won't need to have any more ID than is required to obtain a handgun in the firstplace.

So, technically, someone who purchased a handgun 15 years ago, and hasn't had a driver's license for the past 10 years will still be able to carry concealed.

Don't know if SD is a stop and identify state, so he may even be able to carry concealed without even possessing any ID at all.

It is not, the decision to inform the officer one is armed is up to the citizen's discretion. It would be wise to do so if open carry is being done, but its not legally required.

I thought he meant that SD doesn't require people to show ID to police upon a stop? If, for example, I'm walking down the street and a cop stops and requests an ID, I don't have to show it.

craneman
03-06-2012, 6:57 PM
It does not surprise me in the least. Their state constitution requires able bodied men to own firearms for the states defence. Some have been trying for years to get rid of that, and they just can't do it.:43:

If you are not doing anything criminal, you will not be stopped in South Dakota for walking around with a firearm on your hip. You will not be stopped to just check ID either. Even if they do, The LEO will not be at all surprised that you would have a loaded gun on your person. Its a whole different world than it is here.

Another reason to go back for good. Damn the blowing snow and 20 below.

radioman
03-06-2012, 7:07 PM
If passed it makes ten per-cent of the country, not bad.

Tier One Arms
03-06-2012, 7:19 PM
Great, I hope the governor signs it. I wonder what state will be next?

SilverTauron
03-06-2012, 7:23 PM
If you are not doing anything criminal, you will not be stopped in South Dakota for walking around with a firearm on your hip. You will not be stopped to just check ID either. Even if they do, The LEO will not be at all surprised that you would have a loaded gun on your person. Its a whole different world than it is here.

Another reason to go back for good. Damn the blowing snow and 20 below.

For one, its only 20 below a few days out of the year.

Second, it easier to shovel snow than it is to register a gun in Chicago or (INSERT COMMUNIST ZONE HERE).

Third,I apologize for the confusion here. Police will not randomly stop armed civilians in the street.One can even open carry a shotgun in public for brief occasions without a single phone call to police. The only risk one has of being stopped by police while armed in South Dakota, is if the officer really likes the 1911 on your hip and needs some shopping advice.

It goes without saying that I will never , ever,in a 10,000 year epoch, return to living in Chicago.

nicki
03-06-2012, 9:06 PM
It is great the legislature did the right thing, how long do you have to wait for the governor to do the right thing?:)

It will be a nice trend to see no permit required spreading across the country.
Let's see which states will be next.

Montana is almost there, New Hampshire is should live up to it's name, live free or die.

Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
03-07-2012, 5:16 AM
It's a small, laminated document used as a permit to operate a vehicle, but that's not important now :).


Decades later & that's STILL funny.


For one, its only 20 below a few days out of the year.

Second, it easier to shovel snow than it is to register a gun in Chicago or (INSERT COMMUNIST ZONE HERE).

Third,I apologize for the confusion here. Police will not randomly stop armed civilians in the street.One can even open carry a shotgun in public for brief occasions without a single phone call to police. The only risk one has of being stopped by police while armed in South Dakota, is if the officer really likes the 1911 on your hip and needs some shopping advice.

It goes without saying that I will never , ever,in a 10,000 year epoch, return to living in Chicago.


:)


The Raisuli

Whiskey84
03-07-2012, 6:08 AM
I see so many states issuing permits and that grass is starting to look awfuly green...

Decoligny
03-07-2012, 9:17 AM
UNFORTUNATELY LOOKS LIKE I REFERENCED THE WRONG BILL IN MY FIRST POST:

HB 1015 got stuck back in January and went nowhere.

HB 1248 is the bill that is on the Governor's desk.

Looks like this is only constitutional carry for those who can drive and are SD residents.

SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE BILL 1248

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for exceptions from certain misdemeanor offenses relating to possession of handguns.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The provisions of §§ 22-14-9, 22-14-9.1, 22-14-9.2 and 22-14-10 do not apply to any person, eighteen years of age or over with a valid South Dakota driver license, who is otherwise eligible to be issued a permit to carry a concealed pistol pursuant to chapter 23-7.

hvengel
03-07-2012, 9:31 AM
So the new law basically says that your valid S. Dak. drivers license is your LTC if you are in S. Dak. Sweet.

Decoligny
03-07-2012, 9:35 AM
So the new law basically says that your valid S. Dak. drivers license is your LTC if you are in S. Dak. Sweet.

Only sweet if you have a DL.

So if you drive, and your spouse does not drive, you can carry but he/she can't?

Looks like this will probably get shot down as the ability to drive a car has nothing to do whatsoever with the second amendment.

Let's say someone has a medical condition, like vertigo, where taking corners at driving speed can make them dizzy. They can't drive due to this condition, so therefore they aren't allowed the same carry rights as someone who can drive a car?

hvengel
03-07-2012, 9:50 AM
This same basic concern also applies to those who are not from S. Dak. since the new law results in those from other states being treated differently than someone from S. Dak. This might be an equal protection violation.

The "fix" for things like non-drivers would be to also allow concealed carry if those with any form of S. Dak. ID.

SilverBulletZ06
03-07-2012, 11:28 AM
Only sweet if you have a DL.

So if you drive, and your spouse does not drive, you can carry but he/she can't?

Looks like this will probably get shot down as the ability to drive a car has nothing to do whatsoever with the second amendment.

Let's say someone has a medical condition, like vertigo, where taking corners at driving speed can make them dizzy. They can't drive due to this condition, so therefore they aren't allowed the same carry rights as someone who can drive a car?

Most states will use a state-issued ID as equivalent of the state drivers license, so if you don't want to drive you can just pop over to the DMV to get an issued ID and carry that way.

Either way, its a big step forward and another state recognizing that special permission shouldn't be required.

Decoligny
03-07-2012, 2:16 PM
Most states will use a state-issued ID as equivalent of the state drivers license, so if you don't want to drive you can just pop over to the DMV to get an issued ID and carry that way.

Either way, its a big step forward and another state recognizing that special permission shouldn't be required.

Apparently the way the bill is currently written it requires the Driver's License, and only the Driver's License. It was even argued before the SD legislature that the 2A should not be subject to a requirement that you have a DL.

They will either need to write another bill that includes the alternate ID, or I see the Governor maybe shooting it down on that particular issue.

Untamed1972
03-08-2012, 7:29 AM
Hmm.....well that sucks on the DL thing. Suprised they specifically limited it to a DL, and did not include an ID card as well for those that dont drive. But it seems they are still issuing CCWs to, so someone w/o a DL will just have to go that route and out of staters will need an accepted out of state CCW just as before.

SilverTauron
03-08-2012, 7:54 AM
Hmm.....well that sucks on the DL thing. Suprised they specifically limited it to a DL, and did not include an ID card as well for those that dont drive. But it seems they are still issuing CCWs to, so someone w/o a DL will just have to go that route and out of staters will need an accepted out of state CCW just as before.

Alright, here's the skinny on why that law is written as it is.

South Dakota has a completely different culture toward guns than liberal districts in America.
In California and other places, the attitude with regard to handguns is that unless one has a CCW, that piece is locked and unloaded inside of a case at all times.
Here in South Dakota a person can freely shoot any weapon they choose on their own property or in any open public land isolated from urban population centers. No permit or permission from the sherrif or authorities is required to carry a weapon , loaded, unloaded, concealed, etc. on your own land.As long as one has a legitimate backstop, one can setup targets and shoot any weapon they got the ammo for at home without a single phone call or SWAT task force response.


Thus stated, public constitutional carry only makes sense in the context of travel. Its hard to fathom just how necessary a vehicle is in a place as rural as SD, but trust me, a car is vital for movement in this state. You can't just walk out of your 22 acre farm and go to the local store. I can easily see a legislator in this state logically deciding that there's no point in passing a law for constitutional carry if someone's not interested in leaving their property. Hence the DL requirement.

Before the law was passed the old CCW statute was that a state resident had to pay $10 ( someone call ALAN GURA! THE HORROR! :p) and pass an NICS background check at the local police station. Between the ease of the process and the high numbers of states which have reciprocity with SD, odds are unless you live in one of those East Coast zones like Massachusetts or Maryland who don't have reciprocity with anyone,odds are you have reciprocity with South Dakota.

Open Carry is legal here as well, so in the event one does not have CCW recognition you can strap on a loaded exposed piece without much in the way of concern. I won't go so far as to say Law Enforcement won't be called out-liberals do live here too- but should they respond you will be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy.

South Dakota lawmen will NOT put you on the ground just because you are armed, and fully expect a "Glock vs M&P" debate once the IDs come back clear. Lawmen here are in a different century of competence and respect to the citizen. When a Rapid City officer was killed in the line of duty ordinary citizens lined up to pay their respects;when a South Dakota lawman falls we don't dishonor their memory with more BS gun laws.

Untamed1972
03-08-2012, 8:10 AM
Thus stated, public constitutional carry only makes sense in the context of travel. Its hard to fathom just how necessary a vehicle is in a place as rural as SD, but trust me, a car is vital for movement in this state. You can't just walk out of your 22 acre farm and go to the local store. I can easily see a legislator in this state logically deciding that there's no point in passing a law for constitutional carry if someone's not interested in leaving their property. Hence the DL requirement.

Except that logic fails to consider that perhaps elderly people or those with poor eye sight who dont drive DO likely still leave their property int he company of someone who does drive. But should still have the ability to carry. But as stated CCWs at nominal cost are still available so it's like ONLY DL holders are being allowed to carry.

mofugly13
03-08-2012, 8:13 AM
Does everybody in SD live on a 22 acre farm??

SilverTauron
03-08-2012, 8:28 AM
Does everybody in SD live on a 22 acre farm??

Nope. But folks who don't are more than happy to bring $10 and proof of residency to the Sherrifs Department for a shall-issue CCW permit.If its a few days until payday, they may carry openly.

It is relevant to state here that unlike a lot of states, California included, the South Dakota CCW permit is valid immediately upon clearance of a background check. Once the applicant pays $10 and fills out the basic name, adress, phone number questionnaire the sherrif's clerk calls in to NICS just like an FFL would for a gun purchase. Once cleared, your paid receipt becomes a temporary CCW permit valid on the spot for 30 days following, which wasn't needed for that long as I received my permanent card 14 days later.


Except that logic fails to consider that perhaps elderly people or those with poor eye sight who dont drive DO likely still leave their property int he company of someone who does drive. But should still have the ability to carry. But as stated CCWs at nominal cost are still available so it's like ONLY DL holders are being allowed to carry.

Indeed.I understand that you guys are used to viewing every legal avenue to discover any infringements in the details, and that's OK. Trust me, if you wish to exercise you 2nd Amendment rights South Dakota won't stand in your way. Those older folk are more than welcome to fill out the same painless documentation to acquire a CCW. It should be mentioned that a DL is not necessary for CCW permit.

hvengel
03-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Does everybody in SD live on a 22 acre farm??

No many of them live on 2,200 acre farms and a few live on 22,000 acre farms/ranches.

A few years ago my family and I traveled from the Bay Area to central N. Dak. for a funeral. When we were about 100 miles into Nevada on Highway 80 my wife commented about being in the middle of nowhere. I laughed and said that we were not even close to the edge of nowhere yet and when we had reached the middle of nowhere that she would know it. Implying that we would indeed be going through the middle of nowhere. Our route took us through Lemon S. Dak and about 40 miles south of there my wife said "Is this is the middle of nowhere?" and I said yes indeed we had reached the middle of nowhere.

Most people in California have no idea how vast and empty many parts of the US are including much of S. Dak. and N. Dak. particularly in the westerns parts. You can drive for extended periods of time and not see another car and it is not uncommon to travel 4 or five miles between farm/ranch houses (these will almost always be on opposite sides of the road so imagine how much farm/ranch land each house represents). Towns can be 30 to 50 miles apart and most of these towns have populations of a few hundred or less.

This makes for huge cultural differences that are reflected in politics and also in how those who work for local and state governments interact with and treat citizens.

Coded-Dude
03-08-2012, 11:10 AM
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

Wouldn't this news make SD a green state? I believe open carry is legal with very few restrictions(entering FGFSZ requires permit, etc.).

warkaj
03-13-2012, 10:36 AM
I see so many states issuing permits and that grass is starting to look awfuly green...

Yeh well wait until the 15% CA state income tax comes rolling in your way this January once it passes the ballot in November.... then the grass will be GLOWING green out of this State. You think it's bad now, give it time. The Governor is bleeding parents out on this, he's cutting schools and trying to put their children up as hostages to get the higher taxes... and he will get it. It's got 42% support now, wait till the 1,600 teachers get laid off this month like they plan... then it'll be over 50% support and we'll get nailed with higher income tax (the plan is 15%) and higher sales taxes... nothing like having 50% of your pay UP IN SMOKE before the ink even touches the check.

Tarn_Helm
03-13-2012, 10:53 AM
Nutshell version with all the legal "mumbo jumbo" cleaned up.

Review South Dakota Codified Laws section 22-14 which deals with unlawful use of weapons.

Don't commit any of the offenses listed and you can legally carry concealed once this law passes.

Don't possess a gun with altered serial number
Don't possess a "controlled weapon"
Don't recklessly discharge a firearm
Don't possess firearm while intoxicated
Don't conceal with intent to commit a felony
Don't commit a felony while armed
Don't possess a firearm if you have a prior conviction for violent crime of certain drug related offenses (15 year prohibition)
Don't possess a firearm if convicted of DV
Don't give firearm to prohibited persons
Don't shoot at occupied structures from a motor vehicle
Don't shoot from a moving vehicle in municipality
Don't possess firearm in courthouse

Good clear summary.

Thanks!
:cool:

hvengel
03-13-2012, 11:20 AM
I have been working/living in Nevada for a few months now. The company I work for has been actively recruiting new employees and most of our candidates are from California. One of our major pitches is that NV does not have a state income tax and that sales tax rates are also lower. Even with the current marginal 11% rate in California the tax incentive for these recruits is very strong since these are high paying jobs even by California standards and all of the recruits are people who would be paying higher marginal tax rates in California. Raising the top rate in California to 15% will only make it easier for companies in other states to draw these highly paid professionals away from California. In the long run this will degrade the tax base and reduce the states revenues.

To be more related to the subject of this thread many of these recruits also ask about the state being shall issue and in most cases it is apparent that they view this in a favorable light. For example, a recent recruit (with a PHD in astral physics) asked about this at our group lunch (Isn't Nevada shall issue?) the day he was here for his onsite interview. We had a lively 5 minute exchange talking about Nevada's CCW and open carry laws. It was apparent that he knew about the shall issue CCW law but may not have been sure of all of the details. It appeared that the did not know that open carry was legal. He will be starting work here early next month so Nevada's liberal gun laws did not scare him away.

hvengel
03-13-2012, 11:20 AM
double post.

ccmc
03-13-2012, 11:47 AM
This same basic concern also applies to those who are not from S. Dak. since the new law results in those from other states being treated differently than someone from S. Dak. This might be an equal protection violation.

The "fix" for things like non-drivers would be to also allow concealed carry if those with any form of S. Dak. ID.

Rant mode on:

What's the fix for equal protection violation in California (no way for nonresidents to legally carry), and when will that happen? That's a much bigger problem than South Dakota's proposed CC law. Nonresidents still have a way to carry in South Dakota with any number of state LTCs available to them whereas no option is available for nonresidents in California. Fix your own state first, then ***** about other states.

Rant mode off.

Bonzer Wolf
03-14-2012, 5:33 AM
South Dakota HB 1248 is on Gov. Daugaard’s desk awaiting his signature. He has until March 19 to either sign or veto it.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) strongly support this bill. I have been in touch with one of the co-sponsors of HB 1015, which was killed in committee. Rep. Betty Olson, SD District 28B told me that she took the original bill and added the requirement that residents must be 18 and hold a SD drivers license to carry a firearm without a state issued permit, because it was the only way to get the Bill out of committee.

Rep Olson said she added that provision to address the concerns of law enforcement who were worried about motorcycle gangs coming into Sturgis, SD for the annual bike rally. Concealed carry permits from 29 states are honored in South Dakota at this time.

Rep. Olson make it clear to me that she doesn’t believe it is Constitutional to require citizens to obtain a concealed weapons permit from the State in order to be keep and bear firearms. Rep. Olson concedes that HB 1248 is not perfect, but believes it’s a step in the right direction. It’s the best Bill that could get passed after HB 1015 (Constitutional Carry for all citizens) was killed in committee.

On March 7, GOA sent out an alert to South Dakota members concerning SD HB 1248:

A bill to allow all South Dakotans to carry a handgun without getting government permission is awaiting Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s signature.

HB 1248 would allow all law-abiding citizens in the state to carry handguns as a matter of right — without having to submit to any obnoxious background checks or waiting periods. But while HB 1248 is a terrific bill, the Governor is not sure what he will do.

“It is uncertain whether the Governor will sign the bill,” reports Bonzer Wolf, a Second Amendment activist who covers freedom issues. “Gov. Daugaard said Wednesday (February 29) that he has yet to examine it closely. The governor is required by law to sign or veto the law two weeks after he receives it.”

ACTION: Please contact Gov. Daugaard and urge him to sign HB 1248.

Click here http://sd.gov/governor/contact.aspx
to access the Governor’s official web page , where you can write and make your views known.

I urge all residents of South Dakota and law abiding citizens from all states who support the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, to write the Governor Daugaard. Here’s an example of an email from GOA.

Dear Gov. Daugaard:

I would urge you to sign HB 1248.

This is an important piece of legislation that allows all law-abiding citizens in the state to carry handguns as a matter of right — without having to submit to any obnoxious background checks or waiting periods.

Criminals don’t wait in lines to get permits. They are always able to get their hands on firearms — even to the point of smuggling them into prisons.

So please reaffirm my Second Amendment right to bear arms by signing this important bill, HB 1248. Gun Owners of America will keep me updated as to what happens. Thank you.

warkaj
03-15-2012, 12:55 PM
Good to see that there are some States that embrace the entire Constitution as a guiding document. Way to go South Dakota. My home state of Ohio is well on it's way to getting this passed as well... and picking up another tax payer from California. Hoping to hear something good this week on the job I interviewed for there in Columbus... hello 5% state income tax, "shall issue", high cap mags and class III tax stamps.

donstarr
03-15-2012, 1:45 PM
[off topic]

Yeh well wait until the 15% CA state income tax comes rolling in your way this January once it passes the ballot in November.... then the grass will be GLOWING green out of this State. You think it's bad now, give it time. The Governor is bleeding parents out on this, he's cutting schools and trying to put their children up as hostages to get the higher taxes... and he will get it. It's got 42% support now, wait till the 1,600 teachers get laid off this month like they plan... then it'll be over 50% support and we'll get nailed with higher income tax (the plan is 15%) and higher sales taxes... nothing like having 50% of your pay UP IN SMOKE before the ink even touches the check.

State taxes were a large part of why I removed myself and my family from the PRK last August. Here, in the [relatively] free state of Colorado, we:
* pay a flat 4.63% income tax
* pay 4.1% sales tax (at my house, in unincorporated Douglas County)
* pay about 70% of the property tax we paid in Santa Clara, CA
* have a better public elementary school for our 3 kids

The other reasons were...
* family in Red Feather Lakes and Thornton (and in nearby Elizabeth, after my Dad moved out here a few months ago from Ventura County)
* sold the Santa Clara house, put 20% down on a 6400 sq ft house on 5+ acres, and had cash left over

Firearms laws didn't play a part in the decision to move, but I'm certainly enjoying them.

donstarr
03-15-2012, 2:34 PM
[off topic]

One of our major pitches is that NV does not have a state income tax and that sales tax rates are also lower.

What about property taxes? I seem to remember that, years ago, when I was considering a move to NV, the property taxes were astronomical compared to California - high enough that they almost made up for the lack of income tax. Something like 3+% in NV compared to 1.1% in CA.

Lack of an income tax is definitely a selling point, though. (EDIT: until people realize that they really don't save that entire amount, because they've lost a Federal deduction :) )

For me, CO's low (and flat) income tax, low sales tax, and low property tax were clinchers. Combining those with my mortgage, homeowner's insurance, and medical insurance savings, our monthly expenses have dropped by over $2300 compared to CA (not yet adjusted for decreased tax deductions).

dave_cg
03-15-2012, 2:41 PM
Does everybody in SD live on a 22 acre farm??
You can always tell a city boy, but you can't tell him much :)

For starters, out in the flat parts of fly-over land, things are surveyed out in nice, regular one mile square parcels called sections, which is 640 acres. When the homestead act was passed, you could claim 1/4 of a section, ie 160 acres by improving it and working it. Farm land tends to by subdivided no further than 80 or 40 acres parcels, and that would have happened in the days of horse-drawn plows. 22 acres would be weird, indeed. That tends to be called a "building site" -- house, barn, machine shed, grain bins. Maybe a horse lot.

Secondly, these days trying to farm on less than a couple of sections or ranch on less than 8 or 10 is a recipe for poor-house living. Less than one family per square mile is about the density of homes for dry-land farm country.

Of course, there are people that live in town -- somebody has to run the hardware store and the feed store and sell fertilizer (the legitimate kind) :). Even there, though, a town of 800 people where a kid can ride a bicycle to a place where he can shoot his .22lr is a very different place to live than, oh, say, Sunnyvale.

True story (really!): My inlaws live in a town of 1200 people in southern Minnesota. They got a new minister for the church who came from SoDak, where he previously served three congregations. He was a character -- when he took off his frock you could see the tell-tale wear mark in his Levi's left by the Copenhagen tin in his rear pocket. "You can't council sinners without first hand experience.", he said. I liked him. He only lasted a couple of years as minister - living in a town of 1200 people surrounded by 1000 acre farms was too much for him -- he got claustrophobic and moved back to SoDak ranch country.

donstarr
03-15-2012, 2:47 PM
Even there, though, a town of 800 people where a kid can ride a bicycle to a place where he can shoot his .22lr is a very different place to live than, oh, say, Sunnyvale.

Here, that place is called "the back yard". And I only have a little over 5 acres.

(Disclaimer: It's my .22LR (a very old Marlin No. 29), and I just let my boys use it from the patio toward the hillside behind us. I make them use .22 CB.)

choprzrul
03-16-2012, 9:07 AM
SD Governor vetoed it. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-16/concealed-handgun-veto-south-dakota/53568632/1)

.

gobler
03-16-2012, 9:55 AM
Wow!! I thought for sure it would pass. Let's hope they over turn the veto.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

Liberty1
03-16-2012, 10:12 PM
SD is still a 'gold star' (no license) open carry state so what does the conceald license help LE do? (hint: nothing except deter carrying by those good people who can't OC for social or business reasons)

http://opencarry.org/sd.html