Press "Enter" to skip to content

Senate Votes to Repeal Permit Requirement for Concealed Pistols

One of the Legislature’s worse ideas this Session, House Bill 1072, allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, passed the Senate yesterday 23–11. HB 1072 passed one vote short in the Senate and ten short in the House of the two thirds necessary to override Governor Dennis Daugaard’s promised veto. The Governor vetoed a similar measure in 2012 (Rep. Betty Olson’s HB 1248) on conservative concerns that repealing the concealed weapons permit requirement could result in South Dakotans spending more time detained by cops.

Gun radicals like Senator Stace Nelson propagandistically label HB 1072 a “Constitutional Carry” bill. This term is uninformative, if not outright deceptive: the right to bear arms does not clearly include the right to sneak around with a pistol hidden in your pants. HB 1072 is properly labeled a “Permitless Concealed Carry” bill.

Alas, some in the media are falling for the gun-nut propaganda. SDPB runs the headline, “Constitutional Carry Passes The Senate, Heads To Governor’s Desk.” The USD Volante at least has the sense to put quote marks around the term: “House Bill 1072 Would Move S.D. to ‘Constitutional Carry’.”

Getting it right are most of our major media:

Related Reading: The Senate also voted 19–15 to approve HB 1156, which would allow enhanced concealed-carry permit holders to carry firearms in the Capitol. The Governor has promised to veto that fearful bill as well.


  1. Rorschach 2017-03-07

    It’s not “constitutional carry.” It’s “ignore the constitution carry.” Some people want to write “well regulated” out of the Second Amendment and write in “unregulated” instead.

  2. Dana P 2017-03-07

    Several courts of late have ruled that “concealed carry” has not a darn thing to do with the Second Amendment. Not a darn thing.

    Too bad gun nuts like to exaggerate, quite a bit, what the Second Amendment actually says/means.

    (btw – I respect the Second Amendment. I own guns. I’m not in daily fear that anyone is coming to take my guns. Because? Well, it just isn’t going to happen. People that say/think the Second Amend is “under attack” are out of their heads)

  3. Adam 2017-03-07

    I would really hope SDPB wouldn’t be as wrecklace with a headline as they were.

    However, HB156 provides South Dakotans the possible event of cross fire taking out many SD Legislators. There is a very remote chance that it could end up being a good thing. I know it’s only a remote possibility – but hey.

  4. Kim Conlin 2017-03-08

    My two cents is it just another way to keep Joe and Josephine Public from considering driving four hours plus in my case to the capital city to testify to a committee. I have watched some legislative committees in the past. What really struck me was the level of dis-interest from legislators. Looking bored, looking half-asleep, not even looking at the person testifying, perhaps playing candy crush on their phone or whatever, and then during committee discussion mumbling incoherently and casting a yea or nay well off the mic. The thought of making a major effort to clear time off from work making that maddening drive, and possibly testifying to a bunch of paranoid people packing heat…no thanks! And I am in no way anti-second amendment. This really disrespects our professional brave highway patrol! Veto this!!

  5. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-03-08

    Careful, Adam—grim suggestions like that could provoke the interest of law enforcement.

    Kim, I share your dismay at some legislators’ seeming disengagement. Legislators should apply my debate round ethos: when students are debating for me, my phone is off and in my pocket, the only window open on my computer is my page for taking notes on their speeches, and the only document on my desk is my ballot. I do nothing but pay attention to what the students are saying and keep track of time so everyone gets a fair shot.

  6. barry freed 2017-03-08

    Are HS Debaters with weak points and only topical knowledge of an issue allowed to call names to further their arguments?

  7. Adam 2017-03-08

    I suppose so, Cory, but that was what the whole political/safety conversation was about – regarding HB156. It was about whether or not gun should be a blazin’ before anyone reaches for the panic button to. Kitty law enforcement.

    SD Legislators trust each other with guns more than they trust trained law enforcement.

  8. barry freed 2017-03-09

    Looks like I killed another thread. Logic does win out sometimes.

  9. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-03-09

    Barry, you didn’t exert any winning logic, just a distraction from the main point. Concealed carry advocates are motivated by hyped-up fear and offering solutions for problems that don’t exist and won’t make daily life better for anyone.

  10. Adam 2017-03-09

    I feel like if everyone had a gun, everywhere I went, everyday life would be like a mini Cold War. Anyone could take anyone else’s life in one unholy instant – and never for a good enough reason.

    Crazy people, and I don’t care what the F you want to call varying degrees of ‘crazy’ or ‘incompetent’, should not be able to buy guns, carry guns, or touch any guns. Ain’t no one gonna change my mind on that any time soon.

    And what heck is Barry even talking about?-LOL-

  11. barry freed 2017-03-10

    I asked the self described Debate Coach if his students could use name calling and sexual assault when debating as he encourages here. Cory, not able to form a valid argument, resorts to childish name calling and reducing people to trite labels meant to diminish their positions.

  12. barry freed 2017-03-10

    It’s a YES or NO Question.

    Are HS Debaters with weak points and only topical knowledge of an issue allowed to call names to further their arguments?

  13. barry freed 2017-03-10

    and I quote:

    It was there and and I posted when I saw Dana had repeated it, but now it’s gone. Hmmmmm
    Regardless, even if I was mistaken, you must admit to defending your practice of name calling.
    Will you promise here and now to never call names again?

  14. Darin Larson 2017-03-10

    Who is coming for your guns this week, Barry? Yawn.

    The problem with the gun lobby is they need to always have a battle to fight even though they have won the war. Crazy people can’t have guns? That is outrageous! Crazy people should have gun rights just like everyone else! Dangerous felons can’t have guns? They need guns more than anyone to defend themselves against other dangerous felons! People in bars can’t have guns? Drunk people need the ability to defend themselves with deadly force just like sober people! Why are guns prohibited in courtrooms? What if the judge rules against you in a threatening manner? Aggrieved parties need the immediate right to pronounce judgment! Go ahead judge, make my day!

  15. Adam 2017-03-10

    Barry doesn’t like adjectives as he believes that using those is name calling – unless, of course he uses the adjectives – and then, of course, it’s fair.

  16. Adam 2017-03-10

    Words ain’t fair unless a true conservative speaks them. Right, Barry?

  17. Don Coyote 2017-03-10

    @barry: Eugene Volokh rocks!

    So let me get this straight. Right now in South Dakota under open carry law I can strap a pistol on my hip and walk around as long as the pistol is visible. However if the weather turns cold and I put on a jacket which conceals the same pistol I’m in violation of the law if I don’t have a permit? Where’s the logic in that?

  18. Adam 2017-03-10

    We can’t never bring in the jobs without just the right perfectly fine-tuned gun policy.

  19. Adam 2017-03-10

    If I could pay Russian prostitutes to urinate all over Barry’s opinion – as it’s stated above – I would so very definitely do that.

  20. grudznick 2017-03-10

    Mr. Adam, if you could pay Russian prostitutes to urinate all over and you’d let me take movies of you watching them I’d chip in a bit towards your cause.

  21. Adam 2017-03-10

    I don’t have the connections that Pooty-Poo has – to get me some Russian prostitutes, but I am a pretty gosh darn resourceful guy.

    Grudz, if we do this, I’m not the guy to watch that sort of stuff, but I might be the guy who’ll sit in another room and take personal satisfaction that Barry’s opinion (on guns) is getting whizzed all over like only Donald Trump could masturbate to.

    It’s gonna take a lot of urine! Tons perhaps. Commander Marmalade isn’t easy to please.

  22. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-03-12

    Coyote, the logic is plain: by carrying a gun, you sacrifice convenience for constant attention to your firearm, your situation, and the law. If you think you might get cold, you’d better bring a holster that can be strapped outside your heavy coat. You also owe it to all of us carry openly so that we can all be aware of the increased threat you pose to our safety and respond accordingly.

  23. Adam 2017-03-12

    I have, what I believe to be, a good new draft pro-gun policy to implement in South Dakota.

    In 2017, Rapid City is seeing a HUGE increase in convenience store robberies and murders – just to steal cases of beer. I would be a happier guy if the clerks behind the counter were allowed quick access to a gun.

    If convenience store clerks are not allowed to properly defend themselves in the event of a robbery, they can easily lose their lives. Baseball bats behind the counter are completely inadequate.

    Guns behind the counter would thwart attempted robberies for cases of beer and probably eliminate the murder rate of gas station clerks.

    Oddly enough, this pretty liberal guy (me) is the only guy talking like this out here. Why does it take a liberal to propose more guns in the right places – while conservatives stand silent in terms of the safety of clerks? I’ll tell you why: because conservatives tend to be too self-centric to think about other peoples’ safety beyond there own – so they fantasize about sneaking around with a hidden gun on their persons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.