South Dakota Governor Vetoes Two Concealed Carry Bills
South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard has decided to veto two concealed carry bills that were approved and sent to the Governor's desk from the South Dakota State Legislature.
House Bill 1156 was one of the bills to have been vetoed. It would have allowed a person to carry a concealed pistol in the State Capitol building in Pierre, with an enhanced concealed pistol permit.
Daugaard says he is concerned about the limited number of training hours that a resident needs to receive an enhanced concealed carry permit, versus a trained officer:
During the legislative session, meaningful debates among the public and legislators are frequent and oftentimes passionate. Where emotions can run high, it is important to be protected by people who are routinely trained to manage dangerous situations. Law enforcement training focuses on knowing when to pull the trigger—and when not to.
Current security in the Capital Building is provided by the South Dakota Highway Patrol, both in uniform and undercover.
House Bill 1072 was the second piece of legislature to be vetoed. 1072 was an act to repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol.
The plan of the bill was to eliminate South Dakotans from being required to get a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon, instead reverting the decision to the federal regulations regarding carrying.
Governor Daugaard has stated his opposition to the bill, citing the ease of obtaining a state-issued permit, including one of his staff going through the process of application to see how cumbersome and time constraining it was. The governor stated the employee filled out the paperwork over her lunch hour and had the permit in hand a few days later.
Daugaard also referred to the denial of nearly 600 applicants being denied a permit due to mental illness, or certain criminal history in Minnehaha and Pennington Counties over the last three years.
As a longtime member of the NRA, I support the right to bear arms. South Dakota’s current permit process is simple and straightforward, and permits can be obtained in a matter of minutes. It is paramount that our state protect the rights of our citizens while at the same time protecting the lives of our citizens.
The South Dakota Sheriffs Association, the South Dakota Police Chiefs Association, the South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, and the South Dakota Fraternal Order of Police were all opposed House Bill 1072.
The South Dakota Legislative body will gather again March 27 to review the Governor’s vetoes and potentially vote on an override.
Do you think that Governor Daugaard is in the right with these vetoes? Do you think the reasons he gave for his decisions are fair? And for any South Dakotans reading this, are the Governor's words correct about life as a gun owner in your state or do you think these laws needed to be put on the books?
Let us know in the comments below!
Sir, you are an oath breaker and unfit to be gov of any state. You swore an OATH to uphold and defend the constitution, and by vetoing this constitutional carry bill, you sir, have broken your OATH of office and as such SHOULD be impeached as governor AND NEVER allowed to hold public office EVER AGAIN. AS SHOULD ALL LE AND LEGISLATORS WHO WISH TO PREVENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LEGAL, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
I stand with` with the Gov Dennis Daugaard of south Dakoda most civilians do not have the knowledge of the real use of deadly force or have the good use of common sense and good judgement conceal carry is for personal defense of a deadly attack when one is out and about or on a public way not to be carried in or on federal or state properties or in the buildings ,Gov Dennis Daugaard must stick to his oath to protect the people in the building, there are many idiots in are country and they do stupid things.
If it is that easy to get a concealed carry permit in SD, and I agree that it is, then what is the objection to Constitutional Carry? The bill would simply allow people to exercise their right to self-protection without jumping through ANY state hoops (as the Founding Fathers obviously intended). The argument about the several hundred folks who were denied permits after failing their background checks is a stupid red herring that is easily exposed for what it is. In fact, those same people would have been declined when they attempted to purchase a gun, they would NOT have been allowed to carry under the proposed law anyway, and it is quite likely that they will carry illegally, and indeed, may already be doing so (since we are talking here, about people with criminal backgrounds).
The issue of the lack of training sounds reasonable on the surface; however, the statistics clearly show that there is no significant difference in either the gun accident rates or the incidence of unlawful shootings, in states like SD, that require no formal training, and those like TX, that require extensive (and expensive) training to get a license to carry. in fact, it appears that the kind of people who are able to pass background checks are very unlikely to be involved in either accidental or unlawful shootings.
Your decision is rediculous. Growing up during hunting season we all had gun racks in our trucks with rifles shotguns etc. we had those in the high school parking lot as we went hunting right after school. I carried all my life as a federal officer for homeland security and now that I am retired I lost that privilege. I have since gotten my concealed carry permit in TX and VA with no issues. I travel a lot a do carry in states where it’s legal.
Thank you for your service and God bless the second Amendment
…. when any one individual – whether their views are yours or contrary – is empowered to override the will of a majority – our society is in dark danger. Elected officials are “elected” to represent the majority of the populace that elected them – not impose their own free will values. Such – sadly – is the case now with a judge (or a few) believing they have the authority to override a President who is empowered to protect the majority who put him in office. God have mercy on those who the blood will rest upon when TSHTF ! Thank God for the 2nd Amendment – this is their situation and they will be held accountable for it whether it is in the next elections – or in the civil unrest and soon-to-come bloodbaths in the streets of America.
Forgive them – for they know not what they do, Heavenly Father.
Here here , well said!
The governor is not all wrong. I do believe that Constitutional carry is a right as guaranteed by the Bills of Rights and I am sure that people of the gang mentality could care less about the of a permit. Although it appears that South Dakota has a very liberal application process which from an outsiders point of view is almost equal to Constitutional carry. Being armed in the Capital building? I don’t think that is a good idea for a civilian as that civilian at the first sighting of a gun by the State police could result in that civilian’s death should a gun disturbance be ongoing. In the Capitol building would be no place for a civilian first responder to activate him/herself with all of the Capitol police being in the area.
These laws should have a vote by the people not a political person. As far as carrying on Government property, then let the additional training be voted on also.
Take the power away from individuals and let the people decide.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Think before you say ,government property does not belong to the government,it was all bought and paid for by tax money from ” We the People” and “We the people” are the owners and “We the people” should make the rules .
The Constitution says you can carry, NO PERMIT NEEDED! No training class needed either. We know when to shoot the bad guy.
Ron Campbell and Ken Bennett You said it all. Next election get rid of all the wanna be dictators.