The last few minutes of yesterday’s Aberdeen crackerbarrel was a muddy jumble of questions and commentary on gun issues. Senator Brock Greenfield used the phrase “wreak maximum carnage” (I think that’s what results from letting legislators carry guns in the Capitol) and said he can understand why South Dakota churches might let their deacons pack heat, while Representative Dan Kaiser responded with surprise to find he was prime House sponsor of Senator Stace Nelson’s Senate Bill 144.
Like Rep. Kaiser, I needed to read SB 144. Its title, “An Act to authorize service members to carry a concealed pistol or revolver without a permit,” suggests just one more needless, ideologically or campaign-financially driven effort to weaken the state’s sensible regulation of firearms. Section 1 simply adds military personnel, including folks in the Reserves and Guards, to the statute that right now authorizes law enforcement to carry concealed pistols without a permit. The exemption applies whether the service member is on duty or off, which seems a bit broad and detached from carrying out one’s duties for one’s country.
But really, sneakily, dangerously broad is Section 2:
No person may issue or enforce any order, instruction, regulation, or rule that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of privately owned firearms or ammunition or their components, which are not expressly provided in statute. Any utterances prohibited under this section are null and void [2017 SB 144, Section 2].
If you read that in the context of the bill’s title, SB 144 seems to assert civilian authority over federal military rules and the chain of command. Under SB 144, the military could not enforce its new policy allowing commanders to grant permission to Department of Defense personnel to carry privately owned firearms on base; state law would pretend to supersede that policy and grant that permission to all personnel. If a superior officer ordered a soldier to check her personal sidearm at the office door, the soldier could refuse that order.
But ignore the title of SB 144 and read the actual, acting text: “No person” doesn’t refer solely to superior officers. “Any utterances” doesn’t refer solely to military orders or regulations. Those statutory words say that you, in your house, your bar, your office, on any private property you control, cannot tell visitors to check their guns at the door.
Rep. Kaiser mentioned private property rights in his remarks yesterday. He said that if a homeowner refuses to allow a visitor to bring a gun across the threshold but the armed visitor persists in entering, that visitor is guilty of criminal trespass.
In Senate Judiciary Tuesday, Senator Nelson said SB 144 is a constituent bill, coming from a Guardsman who complains that, without the ability to carry his concealed pistol, he’s not the “Minuteman” the Founding Fathers intended. (Historical note: the original Minutemen responded with muskets and rifles, not concealed pistols, were terrible shots, and played only a minor role in securing American independence).
The state Department of Military sent Brigadier General Kevin Griese to note that few soldiers are given specific training on pistols. The Department said SB 144 is “unnecessary.”
Senator Arthur Rusch (R-17/Yankton) told Senate Judiciary that SB 144 covers multiple subjects not covered in its title (an unconstitutional flaw that generally outrages Senator Nelson). Senator Rusch said more guns on military bases create more dangerous situations.
Justin Smith, lobbying on behalf of the state Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Youth Care Providers, focused on the sneaky Section 2 and its detachment from SB 144’s title. Smith noted that “person” is not defined in Chapter 33, the military affairs statutes, and that one could thus make the argument I make above, that Section 2 is a universal prohibition on gun prohibitions.
Guilherme Costa, speaking for the Board of Regents, took no position on Section 1 but raised concern that Section 2 could be read to allow visitors to prisons to carry pistols. He also said Section 2 could negate Regental rules against guns on campus, which could raise costs for training and security by millions of dollars. Tim Dougherty, speaking for South Dakota’s private colleges, raised the same concern about Section 2.
Senate Judiciary divided the question and has twice deferred SB 144. Its next hearing is Tuesday, February 14, at 8:00 a.m. Let’s hope the long delay has given committe members time to recognize that both sections of SB 144 are legally and practically problematic. SB 144 is another unnecessary sop to the NRA, playing to fears of security risks that more guns in more hands won’t solve.
I don’t own a gun, but if I did and somebody packing heat came on my property and I told him not to carry on my property and he insisted, could I then shoot him? Once again, SD law makers looking for a problem. I say let them carry while they are in Pierre, maybe our #SDleg problem will sort itself out.
And here I thought this party was supposed to consider individual property rights to be sacrosanct? Or do they really mean “only when we agree with it”? Ugh.
Good to know that all of our real problems and issues have been addressed, since they can now focus on such trivial crap.
It is a BS straw man arguement claiming this bill subverts private property rights, it doesn’t as it cannot.
@CAH As stated, this IS a constituent bill. Your liberal fears of guns not withstanding, there are 4 statutes already in effect that support this bill. The legislature enacted provisions (where we got portions of section 2) which already prohibit townships, municipalities, and counties from enacting any gun restrictions not authorized by the legislature. #4 statute already prohibits the Regents, etc, from enacting anything that restricts concealed carry permit holders from carrying! We made a title change that fixed th single subject in which title Article and we have an amendment that will alleviate any unwarranted arguements that this bill has any effect on private property rights.
Civilian control IS the rightful master of our military. This bill, like any other state statute, would be secondary to federal statutes. Our Guard is a state entity and subject to Souh Dakota control unless activated. You assumed Rusch knew what he was talkIng about when it came to jurisdiction, he did not. As someone who had to deal with the variations of jurisdiction on numerous military bases CONUS & OCONUS, it is not a given the federal govt has exclusive jurisdiction. In many cases there is concurrent jurisdiction. On installations overseas, host countries often have jurisdiction if the victim is their citizen.
This bill was brought because Of terrorists attacks on military members her in the USA, and because Guard
Members complained in frustration that they are not allowed to even have their weapons with them on Guard facilities which disarm them coming and going. We are sending these troops overseas to fight terrorIsm, having public send offs, then disarming them here at home after we have them kick the hornet’s nest overseas.
If Folks understand the real story behind this, not the one filtered through a liberal lense? They will see the need to keep petty bureaucrats from enacting and enforcing laws not approved by the legislature.
So what Nelson is saying is the whole Middle East kerfluffle promulgated by right wing nut jobs was part of a devious wingnut plan to push more guns in more places in more of America. Amirite?
Allah save us all.
Are active military members allowed to carry any personal firearms on military bases?
@El Rayo X They are, but many installation commanders have enacted their own flourish of gun control to the point there is a DOD wide effort (started under Obama !) to enact policies that guarantee service-members conceal carry even aboard exclusive federal jurisdiction. This comes on the heels of acknowledged heighten terrorists threats targeting service members CONUS. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html
“SB 144 is another unnecessary sop to the NRA, playing to fears of security risks that more guns in more hands won’t solve.”
Well said Cory. That says it all.
Twenty veterans commit suicide every day. Do they need help from a low self-esteemed, gun huggers superfluous attempt at masculinity masquerading? More guns mean more problems.
Not only can your land now be seized for a corporate pipeline, but they can do it armed to the teeth. How is this possibly in the public’s best interest? Every year from these fantasy land legislators we get more guns, more god, more anti-abortion, and recently more bathroom problems. We elect cartoon characters.
Fact is that many veterans are unstable and Stace Nelson is among that group. I’ve never even met the fellow and he’s threatened me with a gun. I’ve heard he did the same in a legislative meeting. Veterans don’t need to be given any more opportunities to commit quick and emotionally driven suicide.
Are there guns in Republican heaven? Do you get to use them, or just hold them?
Stace Nelson,
Can’t you find something more productive to do in the state senate that would benefit all citizens of the state and no just a bunch of paranoid gun huggers?
Corruption remains to be king in South Dakota, IM22 has been tossed out and apparently you haven’t done a thing to replace it.
Chuck-Z … they just sit on a cloud in their underwear, stroke their little pistols and dream that they’re protecting women.
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ammosexual.jpg
This what you mean, Porter? Don’t take a drink before opening this link.
mfi
That was way scary.
Fun question, Tim! If you shoot the trespasser in order to enforce your order that he not bring a gun on your property, then SB 144 would say you can’t do that (“No person may issue or enforce any order…”).
SDCL 22-18-4 does say you can use force or violence to prevent trespass on your property. So to avoid SB144, you need to say not, “Leave your gun at the door,” but “Get off my property.” Under SB144, you have to make clear that you are not restricting anyone’s possession of a firearm but that you simply don’t want that specific person on your property.
SDCL 22-16-34 says you can kill the intruder if the intruder is trying to kill you or commit a felony on your property.
SDCL 22-16-35 says you can shoot to kill “if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”
However, according to SDCL 22-35-6, criminal trespass is only a misdemeanor—Class 2 usually, but Class 1 if I tell you face-to-face, “Get out of here!” and you don’t get out. It’s also Class 1 misdemeanor if you sneak onto the property.
So that tells me that no, you can’t shoot a trespasser just for entering your property while carrying a concealed weapon… unless you think you can make the case to the judge/jury that you had reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the pistol-packer to commit a felony.
Senator Nelson, I take issue with the term “liberal fear of guns.”
1. I have no liberal fear of guns. I have a pragmatic recognition that more guns make my house, my schools, and my Capitol more dangerous.
2. You have a conservative fear of lots of problems—some real, some imagined, some stoked by Fox News propaganda—that won’t be solved by guns.
Senator Nelson, if our concerns about SB 144 affecting private property rights are unwarranted, then why is an amendment being offered to alleviate those unwarranted concerns? The language of the bill before us is pretty clear: “No person… any order, instruction….” I’m a person. I may issue instructions against carrying weapons on my property. SB 144, as written, prohibits me from issuing or enforcing those instructions.
That’s not a liberal or conservative argument. That’s an explanation of the meaning of words. How is my concern about that restriction of my ability to direct activity on my property unwarranted?
Chuck-Z brings up an interesting point: suppose the next pipeline funded by Trump investment capital comes through my land. Suppose the pipeliner offers me a fair price for my land, and I want to sign the easement, but I require that the easement spell out that under no circumstances are pipeline personnel to carry firearms on my property. Wouldn’t SB144 preclude that possibility?
Or take it the other direction: suppose the pipeliner seizes my land by eminent domain. A thousand protestors come to raise hell. I welcome them onto my property but tell them they have to leave their guns in the cars, off my property. Under SB144, the protestors can ignore that order and enter my property with guns.
Unintended consequences, Senator Nelson?
@CAH Your contrived straw man arguments are with both the 2nd Amendment and SD’s Bill of Rights Article 6
§ 24. Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
SB144 s being brought because bureaucrats violating the explicit verbiage of our US & SD Constitutions.
Ironic that you folks lament respecting our service member’ Constitutional rights even as you do so from the freedoms we secured you at the tip of a gun. Enjoy folks, freedom ain’t free, we few paid the full measure that you enjoy today. ?
What freedom did you secure? You were a “clown cop”. You can’t spell wimp without mp.
People could almost infer that this law bill 144 was authored by Rick Wieland or some rich libbies from Massachusetts. It is that sloppily written. Mr. Nelson, did you have Represent You write that bill #144 for you?
@cah:”Historical note: the original Minutemen …. played only a minor role in securing American independence”
Horse hockey. The “Swamp Fox” Francis Marion’s and Thomas Sumter’s militias kept 10,000 British regulars of Cornwallis tied in knots from 1780-1781 after the Continental Army’s humiliating defeat at Charleston. It was Marion’s success that eventually led to Cornwallis’s withdrawal to Yorktown for resupply and extraction. And we all know how well that worked out
Last time I checked, Nelson, the state of South Dakota was not under attack. You could argue the women of the state are under a constant barrage from right wingers who want to control their bodies. I’d argue that women should have the right to carry guns for protection from wingnuts.
Enjoy folks, freedom ain’t free, we few paid the full measure that you enjoy today. ?
You’re still, alive, ain’t you?
Is that theatrics or dramatics? Doesn’t matter. Whichever they are they haven’t improved much.
Contrived, Senator Nelson? I contrive nothing. I cite Article 6, Section 1, enumerating South Dakotans’ inherent rights: “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness.”
I protect my property by asking visitors to leave their guns at the door. SB 144 takes away that right. Will your amendment resolve that non-contrived, non-political, purely language-based, and as yet unrefuted conflict?
To avoid answering the question I posed, Senator Nelson contrives an appeal to the glory of winning freedom at the point of a gun and accusing me of not respecting soldiers’ sacrifices.
To show the flaw in Senator Nelson’s contrived language:
I respect the fact that soldiers have shot and killed people on battlefields to defend my freedom. That creates no obligation on my part to support laws that allow soldiers to shoot and kill people on our streets.
Now substitute:
I respect the fact that soldiers have carried guns on battlefields to defend my freedom. That creates no obligation on my part to support laws that allow soldiers to carry guns on our streets.
When was the last time America fought a war that was directly in defense of our freedoms?
I’m so glad State Legislators are offering such tremendous, great ideas to Make South Dakota Great Again!
When it comes to allocating tax dollars, attracting new employers, and stimulating the economy, I am hard-pressed to find a better way than making sure that we are all gun friendly folks and advertising to the rest of the country that we don’t have a clue how to prioritize what’s important.
Roger C asks an interesting question about the USA’s direct reasons for entering or starting wars. For example, we didn’t intervene in the civil wars in Vietnam and Korea to protect Americans’ freedoms. Rather, we took sides in these civil wars in an effort to support a political form of government our then leaders favored.
We started the war in Iraq not to protect American freedom, but in response to false propaganda about weapons of mass destruction and 9-11. We invaded Afghanistan not to protect American freedom, but to force regime change there because we thought the Saudi Arabian who masterminded 9-11 was being sheltered there by the Taliban.
We didn’t declare war in WWI and WW2 until other countries actually attacked us, which arguably was in defense of our freedoms. Since those wars ended, however, the “defense of our freedoms” justification seems strangely inapplicable to our more recent wars.
I seldom disagree with Stace and appreciate his ability to stand up for what is right even when his party is wrong. I also realize that he has military experience and has kicked the hornets nest for us when need be and I have not with a weapon, may have verbally quite often. So we do have different experiences and will undoubtedly see things a little different.
But as a non violent Christian with no military experience and never been in a fight, I do remember that the children of Isreal in the old Testament were safe when they followed God with the same neighbors as they have now. They made their swords into plowshares when the battle was over and were safe.
There are also a small percentage of vets who are not safe to be around if they have a weapon because of the stresses of battle. That is not necessarily their fault but even the Guards know it is not safe for the other vets to have them armed in the armory. They know their own better than I do. This is not a happy idea for someone who learned to depend on their weapon for safety and then be denied it, but they are civilians now.
If I did not have the right to make the rules on my own property by not allowing an armed person in my house before, then I should have and should in the future. If I have the right to defend myself and my method is not guns then others should not have a gun in my house either.
I am not suggesting that God made every person for the same purpose. King David was a man after Gods own heart, was a warrior, but could not even build the church building because he was a man of war. If God made one person for one purpose and another for another purpose, then we may have different mind sets. Everyone deserves a situation where they feel safe. I have met some very violent people in my lifetime and have been seriously threatened and survived. But I do think I should be able to make my own rules in my own house and if they do not want to enter my house with my rules is their right.
@Roger to assuage concerns, rightful or otherwise, we will have an amendment that specifically reiterates verbiege found in several statutes to limit state agencies. Amazing the statutes a person finds when an issue is brought forward.
Stace,
Didn’t the governor promise to veto SB144? Are you certain of a veto override?
I remember one of the 2 dumbass dubyas wanted to paint a UN plane to look like American in hopes Saddam would fire on it and give us an excuse to wage war. Our government would willingly violate international law to precipitate a war.
In Panama, the CIA set up one of their Panamanians with a radio to broadcast anti-Noriega propaganda, knowing full well he would be caught and tortured, thus giving dumbass dubya the 1st the excuse to launch his war to get rid of a rogue CIA agent/dictator-Nopriega.
America has a very sordid past using the CIA to run foreign policy.
Here are those statutes, 1-26-6.10 has raised some eyebrows and concerns that state agencies have violated this…
1-26-6.10 Restriction of licensee’s right or privilege to carry or possess pistol prohibited. No state agency may adopt or promulgate any rule that restricts any right or privilege to carry or possess a pistol in contravention to authority being exercised in accordance with being licensed to carry a concealed pistol pursuant to chapter 23-7.
Source: SL 2006, ch 5, § 1.
7-18A-36. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No county may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.
Source: SL 1983, ch 38, § 2.
8-5-13. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No township may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.
Source: SL 1983, ch 38, § 3.
9-19-20. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No municipality may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.
Source: SL 1983, ch 38, § 1.
AMENDMENT FOR PRINTED BILL
___________________ moved that SB 144 be amended as follows:
On page 2 of the printed bill, delete lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and insert:
”
No state agency may adopt or promulgate any rule or order that restricts any right or privilege
to carry or possess a firearm by a service member as defined in § 33-1-1, or any member of the National Guard or any reserve component of the armed forces of the United States, which are not expressly provided in statute.”.
Changing “person” to “state agency” alleviates my private property concerns (and that amendment suggests that my concerns about private property rights were valid).
But are the Regents a state agency? Won’t that amendment still mean the campuses lose their ability to regulate guns on campus, at least those carried by soldiers?
Doesn’t granting soldiers free rein to carry guns around the state nudge the Posse Comitatus Act?
“to assuage concerns, rightful or otherwise,” is not an excuse to keep bad laws. A rightful concern is an area where the laws should change. Otherwise we would just keep slavery because it was once on the books. My concerns was with rights of private property owners and your law appears to be pointed at local governments not being able to over step state law. Normally a smaller level of government can make stricter laws than a higher level of government but not to undo the law of a higher level of government. A local government can make more restrictive speed limits for a school zone. But can not take away a freedom that the higher level guarantees. But to take away the citizens right to make their own rules on their own property is questionable.
How does this relate to armed guards keeping the press away from oil spills on farmland like what happened recently in South Dakota. I was of the understanding that no guns were allowed where the pipe crew was working or camped. Maybe a contract violation?