Guns matter far less to the proper functioning of South Dakota government than our legislators would have you believe. Guns won’t raise teacher pay, expand Medicaid, stop corruption, make taxes fairer, stave off the impending budget deficit, improve race relations, or take care of any of the other major issues facing South Dakota.
But our legislators keep churning out bills dealing with guns. Here’s a sample of the bang-bang bills they’ve thrown in the hopper so far:
- Senate Bill 77 would exempt holders of concealed weapons permits from the ban on firearms and other dangerous weapons in the Capitol.
- Senate Bill 121 would allow the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to authorize their sergeants at arms and assistant sergeants at arms to carry firearms in the Capitol.
- House Bill 1129 would allow carriers of the enhanced concealed weapons permit, created during last year’s session, to carry their weapons in the Capitol and county courthouses.
- House Bill 1142 would prohibit businesses and employers from prohibiting guns in their parking lots.
Each of these bills reheats ideas that have been offered and wisely defeated in past sessions. Each of these bills serves little practical purpose other than to boost certain legislators’ NRA ratings and fantasies of John Wayne-hood. Each of these bills makes public spaces (and, in the case of HB 1142, private property) less safe.
Perhaps most importantly, each of these bills distracts legislators from solving real problems.
A Twitter neighbor, who apparently thinks like some gun-worshiping legislators, told me this week, “I carry every day for your safety and mine.” (This neighbor also asserted his prioritization of Constitutional amendments: “Without the 2nd the government would have no problem taking away the first,” which I find hilariously clueless, given the federal government’s ongoing suppression of First and Fourth Amendment rights under the Patriot and Freedom Acts even as gun ownership has swelled under an intact and over-sanctified Second Amendment.)
When it comes to the Legislature, hogwash. Legislators don’t make us or themselves safer by expanding the places where they or anyone else can carry guns. They make us safer, healthier, and stronger as a democracy when they put down their guns and gun bills and practice real statecraft. Kill every one of these gun bills and get back to work.
Stupidest state in the union. I would guess allowing guns in these institutions while the public conducts its business endangers them and there is likely constitutional basis to keep them out.
Statements like this, from low self-esteemed gun huggers “I carry every day for your safety and mine.” are symptomatic of a belief that they’re “protecting” someone in need … usually women who find the whole assertion ridiculous. It’s called a “protection erection” and it helps these gun huggers feel less inadequate around women; when the truth is quite the opposite. Sometimes they sit in the dark, semi-clothed holding their weapons and fantasize about how they’d save the day if a “bad guy” ever threatened a fair damsel in distress. You’re a hero in your own mind, pilgrims. And doesn’t carrying a gun make you feel more like a real man, hmmm?
Ask these clowns why NO person acting under a 2d Amendment right NEVER in the history of the republic stopped a mass shooting or presidential assassination attempt.
Then ask the clowns why more Americans died from American amicide since 1963 than died from all the wars fought in the nation’s history.
It’s long past the time to put a cork in this easy violent society. History shows this is such a juvenile, infantile society that is incapable of practicing the responsibility of widespread, easy gun ownership. The history of this republic is replete with “gun control” – the torries controlled the patriots’ guns; patriots controlled the Tories’ guns; most controlled the Indian’s guns; local sheriffs controlled guns of visiting drovers; today we control guns in the oft impassioned environs of court or legislatures even schools – for good reason.
Why would these dits need to pack heat in the Capitol? Are they afraid there might be folks upset with what goes on in Pierre?
I would really like to know what scares this bunch so much. House bill 1142 looks like a direct response to Texas businesses that got feed up with idiots packing guns and put a ban on them while on their property. In short state government wants to dictate private property rights. I thought republicans did not like government interfering with private property. I think voting Democratic would be the smart thing to do for people who want to protect their private property from government intrusion.
The sergeant at arms of the SD House, Mel Chandler, is a sweet little old man who wears bifocals on a chain around his neck. I don’t think anyone would be safer with him packing heat. If armed guards are needed in the state capitol building post a uniformed state trooper there, at least they have gone through an established training program.
Funny: the only time in recent memory that we’ve heard of armed personnel being mobilized in response to a security threat was in 2012, when Speaker Rausch apparently called in the Highway Patrol to keep an eye on Rep. Stace Nelson, one of the biggest gun-rights advocates in the House at that time, after he gave Rep. Nick Moser a piece of his mind.
Cory, how did your comment at 06:31 get placed out of chronological order?
If legislators want to improve safety they should focus on expanding medicaid instead of access to weapons. My votes would be No, No, No, and No!
Anyone know how much of this nutbaggery is driven by Gov. Daugaard’s legal counsel to divert attention from the culture of corruption in Pierre? It’s happening in New Mexico, too where Republican Governor Susana Martinez is being probed.
(Nick, good question! In my dashboard, I have an option to hit “Reply” on specific comments. Evidently that option sticks my comment right below the clicked comment. I haven’t enabled that option for commenters here, since I prefer the straight chronological listing to the nested reply threads that get too convoluted. Now that I see how that Reply option throws my comments out of order, I’ll use it sparingly!)
Larry, I’d love to be able to tie this nutbaggery to the Governor. Even if we can’t prove it’s a sin of commission, candidates should charge incumbents with sins of omission, distracting themselves and others with bills on guns, God, and abortion instead of rooting out corruption.
Politicians pandering.. who would have thought?
Blogsters pandering… who would have thought?
Posters dreaming of partially clothed opposition as they reiterate ignorant opinions… who wants to think?
None of it works towards a more perfect Union, but it is advertising and self promotion for all. Does the “free” in DFP stand for facts and critical thinking?
“House Bill 1142 would prohibit businesses and employers from prohibiting guns in their parking lots.” So, in “protection” of the 2nd Amendment, businesses and employers are prevented from exercising their 1st Amendment rights? I can’t tell you to NOT carry a gun on MY property or at MY business? Hypocritical much?
I have a concealed carry and carry frequently. But you can’t let people run around the Capitol with guns it’s just not a good idea. While I don’t want to see restrictions on our ability to carry in general, a little common sense should be used here. If those in Pierre are concerned for their safety, which is understandable work with the highway patrol and other law enforcement to have a larger security presence during session. There is no need for non law enforcement to have guns inside the capitol (with the exception being governor’s security person). I just wish this wasn’t a political issue as someone who likes some republicans and some democrats, I have a strong dislike for stupid bills from both sides, in this case from the republicans.
Bill 1142 could get interesting. The text of the bill reads “No business or other public or private employer may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits any person from transporting or storing, on any area provided for invitee or employee parking, a firearm or ammunition if the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state laws and rules and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.”
A school is a public employer correct? So this means schools will no longer be able to ban firearms from their premises since employees and students (invitees) will be able to legally keep their guns and ammo in their locked vehicles.
Aside from that I’d sense a legal challenge here. If the Empire Mall wishes to ban guns from their property that would mean all of their property. They have private property rights and if the state wishes to ignore those rights then what other rights are they willing to ignore? I understand the logistical concerns with a gun owner not wanting to worry about getting in trouble for parking in a parking lot of a gun-free establishment, but this is a law seeking to solve a problem which doesn’t exist.
As Cory indicated, these bills are just meant to inflate NRA ratings. They don’t solve any problems nor are they a good use of our legislator’s limited time in Pierre.
Barry, to whom am I pandering?
Craig, yes, this bill would appear to allow teachers, students, and visitors to bring guns to school, as long as they leave them locked out of sight in their cars. That provision runs afoul of federal law. And yes, this law would forbid private property owners from banning guns on their parking lot property.
Dave L., I appreciate your willingness to strike a reasonable balance between gun rights and safety. I’ll only quibble with your statement that it is “understandable” that legislators might fear for their safety in Pierre. They work in one of the safest buildings in the state, with armed law enforcement officers in the building, often within shouting distance. If a violent disturbance broke out, we’d see a faster law enforcement response time there than in 99.9% of office buildings in South Dakota. As you say, they have ample law enforcement personnel to turn to with security concerns rather than pretending they need to arm themselves and play Wyatt Earp when they should be playing Winston Churchill.
The rate of legislator shootings in South Dakota is also low, if not non-existent. Lee Schoenbeck and Marty Jackley were more likely to get buckshot in their butts at Nick Nemec’s farm hunting than they are when they report for work in the Capitol.
The trigger diddlers and pee pee diddlers in the House and Senate have no purpose in Pierre other than to run down the clock to ‘sine die’ and get nothing done. The last several governors of South Dakota have programmed these diddlers to rubber stamp their agendas and stay out of the way. The result is what they say about idle hands becoming the devil’s workshop. The tie to nutbaggery is indirect, as is the tie to the voting public.
If and when the voting public wants to change the course of our state from short-sighted, caretaker governors and their trigger diddlin’, pee pee diddlin’ handmaidens in the House and Senate, South Dakota will continue to crawl along on its belly while other states stride toward progress. Barry, critical thinking is important but there isn’t much allowance for it in Pierre and it’s not encouraged when people are supposed to vote. And don’t count on the brain dead Fourth Estate to demonstrate much concern. That’s why this blog is so important if you, indeed, value critical thinking.
Is there a smart, public minded legislator in Pierre that is willing to introduce legislation that would move proposed legislation that effects more of our stage’s population to the front of the line? How about tackling teacher pay, educational funding and mental health funding first?
Frivolous bills are a DISTRACTION formulated by the Republicans’ hierarchy to keep the public from knowing/caring about what ISN’T getting done in Pierre!
guns are part of America! haters gonna hate!
LK, I suspect our path to expediting meaningful legislation depends on electing meaningful legislators. At the very least, we need to elect Democratic majorities who would select chamber and committee leaders who would prioritize what goes to committee first.
Frivolous and distracting—Jake, you predicted Kris’s next comment!
Slavery was once a part of America. That didn’t stop us from recognizing we needed to change that part of America. Stop shouting, Kris, and start thinking.
“The backlash from Second Amendment Fundamentalists—and I used to think I was one of them—was immediate,” Metcalf later wrote in a column for Politico…. “The hijacking of our movement by these radical extremists causes me to fear for the future of the right….”
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/guns-ammo-media/434013/
Mike Vanderboegh first surfaced in the Alabama militia, or “Patriot,” movement after the 1993 standoff in Waco, Texas and in 2008 became one of the founders of a Patriot group called the Three Percenters.
His history apparently gave no pause to Fox News, which brought him on as an expert commentator to attack a failed ATF gun-trafficking sting called “Fast and Furious” without giving any inkling of his extremist activities.
Vanderboegh had also urged followers to throw bricks through the office windows of members of Congress who supported legislation that would have eventually given legal status to undocumented immigrants.
Finally, after the brick-throwing episodes in 2010, Fox stopped giving Vanderboegh a platform and describing him as “an authority.”
Heavily armed III Percenters “roll-up on FBI”and leader calls OIC “an ass”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN4Jj1QPvVY
III Percenter Pres. Brandon Curtiss speaking in the above video,also demonstrated in November 2015 at the Boise Capitol as 70 counter-protestors confronted him across the street. Curtiss took to his bullhorn to denounce them as “cowards” before reminding his troops not to respond…as they filed past….the marchers…youngsters, who flipped them off silently.
Curtiss, in turn, couldn’t resist hitting the button on his bullhorn’s screeching siren as he walked past them.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/04/%E2%80%98iii-percenters%E2%80%99-ride-wave-islamophobia-idaho-lead-anti-refugee-protests
also see-
http://theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com/2016/02/john-wrede-and-i-discuss-bundys-their.html
absolutely hilarious, in context–“blogger arrested” burns OR
https://youtu.be/Z8KeeIW5eMM
KEEP IT UP REPUBLICANS. THESE GUYS ARE GONNA BE OUT HERE NEXT
barry carry-SD IS 2ND STUPIDEST STATE:
On Aug. 1, 2016, a so-called state “campus carry” law goes into effect allowing people 21 and older with a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in classrooms and buildings throughout the University of Texas system, one of the nation’s largest with an enrollment of more than 214,000 students.
“I do not believe handguns belong on a university campus, so this decision has been the greatest challenge of my presidency to date” huffpo, today
The University of Texas president approved plans… (that would allow for licensed concealed handguns)…he has been forced to do so under a new law approved by the state’s leaders.
howz this for constl rt to concealed carry?
remmington 870 tactical 12 ga. who needs onennathese anyway? this kid (27) from montana apparently:
Ryan actively participated in guard duty at the refuge. When he arrived at the eastern Oregon refuge in January, Ryan brought four firearms – a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, a Remington 870 tactical shotgun, a .45-caliber 1911 style semi-automatic pistol and a .45-caliber compact pistol. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/04/concern_about_montana_sheriff.html
the militarization, sexualization and hipness factor in marketing gunz and 2d amend fanatisicm is NRA all the way.
video news report showing concealed carry into navy yard
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/breaking-navy-yard-shooters-remington-870-revealed/