In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Handgun bill vetoed---

peabopeabo Member Posts: 3,098
edited April 2012 in Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
South Dakota bill vetoed ---C&P


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-16/concealed-handgun-veto-south-dakota/53568632/1?csp=YahooModule_News


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday vetoed a bill that would have allowed any resident 18 and older with a valid state drivers' license to carry a concealed handgun without having to obtain a permit.

By Chet Brokaw, AP
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a law would have allowed anybody eligible to qualify for a gun permit to bypass that process and simply carry a weapon.

In his veto address of House Bill 1248, Daugaard said the state's permitting laws are already "fair and reasonable."
"Each year, locally-elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history," Daugaard wrote in his veto message. "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."
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Options
    River RatRiver Rat Member Posts: 9,022 ✭
    edited November -1
    Bummer! Hope they can override the veto. And I hope the voters remember this at the next election.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,476 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    But it is only the Democrats who want to restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights. This has to be a mistake.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
    edited November -1
    Can't be true. Democrats are the only ones who are for gun-control and who take actions against the Constitution.

    Voter Romney, Gingrich or Santorum and preserve and protect your Amendment II rights and protect, defend and preserve the Constitution and individual liberty.

    Under no circumstances should you actually review or examine any of their previous actions and advocacy.

    To do so will ensure that you have no plausible deniability for the support and voting action that almost all of you are certain to take.[;)]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    shilowarshilowar Member Posts: 38,815 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think a similar bill died in the Va General Assembly this session.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    hk-91hk-91 Member Posts: 10,050
    edited November -1
    I use to live in SD. Its easy and very cheap to get a CCW there. Had one there from the age of 18 till i moved to ND at age 23. You go to sheriff, fill out little card, pay 6.00 ( I think its 10 now ). After 1 to 2 weeks sheriff will issue you a temp permit till real one comes in.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    partisanpartisan Member Posts: 6,414
    edited November -1
    It could be worse! They could live in ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![}:)]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by hk-91
    I use to live in SD. Its easy and very cheap to get a CCW there. Had one there from the age of 18 till i moved to ND at age 23. You go to sheriff, fill out little card, pay 6.00 ( I think its 10 now ). After 1 to 2 weeks sheriff will issue you a temp permit till real one comes in.




    Why should anyone have to get one?

    Under the text of Amendment II, where is the authority to require one?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Waco WaltzWaco Waltz Member Posts: 10,828 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Republicans, the new democrats. = Scum
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 39,358 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    Bingo, Don and the good Cap'n!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    hk-91hk-91 Member Posts: 10,050
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by hk-91
    I use to live in SD. Its easy and very cheap to get a CCW there. Had one there from the age of 18 till i moved to ND at age 23. You go to sheriff, fill out little card, pay 6.00 ( I think its 10 now ). After 1 to 2 weeks sheriff will issue you a temp permit till real one comes in.




    Why should anyone have to get one?

    Under the text of Amendment II, where is the authority to require one?




    I'm not saying they should have to get one, Just saying they are very easy to get there.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by hk-91
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by hk-91
    I use to live in SD. Its easy and very cheap to get a CCW there. Had one there from the age of 18 till i moved to ND at age 23. You go to sheriff, fill out little card, pay 6.00 ( I think its 10 now ). After 1 to 2 weeks sheriff will issue you a temp permit till real one comes in.




    Why should anyone have to get one?

    Under the text of Amendment II, where is the authority to require one?




    I'm not saying they should have to get one, Just saying they are very easy to get there.
    Understood.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    sovereignmansovereignman Member Posts: 544 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by partisan
    It could be worse! They could live in ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![}:)]
    [:(][xx(]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Hunter MagHunter Mag Member Posts: 6,611 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by partisan
    It could be worse! They could live in ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![}:)]

    Easy now....talk about pouring salt in the wound...[:(]

    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    Vote Romney, Gingrich or Santorum and preserve and protect your Amendment II rights and protect, defend and preserve the Constitution and individual liberty.
    Same thing as joining the NRA to protect our "gun rights"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    old-dogold-dog Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This "permit" legislation in any state is a pretense to investigate one's background. I agree we shouldn't have to carry a "permit" since it is our inalienable right granted by our creator, and the gov't is charged to protect that right in the 2nd, but it does make sense to have a means to prevent those who are convicted felons who abuse firearms because they have lost that right through their conviction in a court of law.. Same as convicted felons lose some of their rights, those who are convicted in a court of law that use firearms in the commission of a crime, need to be denied that right since they have shown themselves to be irresponsible in exercising that right.

    Background checks related to the 2nd are similar to the right of Free speech in the First. One can't scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This free speech is NOT protected under the First.

    I think reasonable people would agree we must separate the good guys who are responsible with firearms from the bad guys who use firearms in the commission of a crime, and I see no other way to do it. That said, once this background check is done, we should not have to carry a permission slip from the government to own and carry.

    I have a feeling some will violently disagree here. So I apologise to chime in and go so quickly but I should make it back by this evening, or soon, perhaps over the weekend. Good thread.

    "The Bill of Rights....Void where prohibited by law"...Big problem.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.