Governor Dennis Daugaard scratched his veto itch today. Stricken by the Governor’s pen today were these five bills:
House Bill 1156: This bill would have allowed individuals with enhanced concealed pistol permits to carry their firearms in the Capitol. In his veto message, Governor Daugaard says the Highway Patrol provides sufficient security in the Capitol and far better security than individuals who take one eight-hour training course to get an enhanced concealed pistol permit:
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. Our law enforcement officers are uniquely able to protect the public, and I believe this bill would complicate that work [Gov. Dennis Daugaard, veto message on HB 1156, 2017.03.17].
House Bill 1072: This bill would have repealed the requirement to get a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Governor and NRA member Daugaard says our current permit requirements have stopped no lawful gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights but have kept permits out of the hands of hundreds of individuals not qualified to carry. The Governor rebuts absolutists by citing Justice Antonin Scalia:
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.” As an example of a lawful limitation Justice Scalia states that “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment…” [Gov. Dennis Daugaard, veto message on HB 1072, 2017.03.17].
House Bill 1149: This bill would have lowered the monthly tax on landlines, cell phones, and radio pagers from fifteen cents to fourteen cents. The Governor (whose parents were deaf) rejects this tax cut as imperiling the sustainability of the telecommunication fund for the deaf. He also says reducing this fee amidst an already tight budget is a bad idea.
Senate Bill 33: This bill revises the special education formula. SB 33 actually froze allocations to special ed. The Governor says that zero increase was passed before the Joint Appropriations Committee found the money to allow the 0.3% index factor increase for general education in SB 35. The Governor says SB 35 increases funding for special ed, too, so SB 33 is redundant.
Senate Bill 164: This bill came from Senator Al Novstrup, who wanted to increase the maximum probation juvenile offenders can receive. Amendments added an option to put juveniles into Corrections if they pose a risk of harm to themselves. Governor Daugaard says jail isn’t the place to take care of kids in such conditions:
The term “harm to themselves” may encompass a broad array of factual scenarios: suicidal thoughts, self-mutilation, tobacco use, drug or alcohol addiction, eating disorders, or many other potential behaviors or conditions.
These serious situations are best dealt with through counseling or treatment, not Department of Corrections custody, and resources are available in communities throughout the state to serve these young people. In fact, placing juveniles with these behaviors into DOC custody, alongside those with violent or dangerous offenses, could put these young people in greater danger or influence them toward more serious problems.
If a juvenile is at risk of self-harm, Department of Corrections custody is not the best way to help that child. In its current form, Senate Bill 164 does not serve to better protect the public and it puts juveniles at risk of unnecessary confinement [Governor Dennis Daugaard, veto message on SB 164, 2017.03.17].
Maybe Governor Daugaard is just playing Grandpa Cheap again and not wanting to add to jail costs, but on this bill, he seems to be hitting the right note. If kids are suicidal, don’t jail ’em; help ’em.
SB 164 and SB 33 both passed with veto-proof two-thirds majorities.
HB 1149 lacked two-thirds in the House.
HB 1072 lacked two thirds in the House and the Senate.
HB 1156 likewise fell short of veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate.
The Legislature reconvenes on Monday, March 27, to consider these vetoes.
Scalia wasn’t as smart as some would like to think. He said cannons weren’t Constitutional to own because a person couldn’t “bear” them, they were too heavy. Except for Hip-Cannons.
Scalia, a deep thinker he was not, but then he WAS a reagan appointee; another deep thinker… yeah.
Does Dan Ahlers hate deaf people? Are the libbies just attacking deaf people to poke a stick at the Governor?
What Grudz? I didn’t hear you
Grudz, the Governor has been sweeping funds from the telecommunication fund because the tax raises more than the necessary expenditures from the fund. This is a favorite game of the Governor.
I thought Republicans were for lowering unnecessary taxes? No?
Who will be the next contestant on Sweeping for Dollars?
Thankfully; Daugaard thinks with reason using the conservatives own champion. The entire notion that the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is wishful thinking and frankly, we all should be sick and tired of wishful thinking people like DiSanto that twist language and history into pretzel like personal theories and constitutional interpretations. We need to quit electing people like that that ignore the realities of supreme court decisions in favor of a brand of civic mindlessness that we don’t need.
Mr. Larson, I thought libbies were for spending more money. Why on earth would young Mr. Ahlers want to reduce taxes if not to poke a stick in the eye of the Governor’s dead deaf daddy.
DDDDD. Dennis Daugaard’s Dead Deaf Daddy.
I expect Mr. Ahlers will write a law bill next year to try and raid the deaf money again. I don’t think the Governor can take this money, I think it is the legislatures that take it. We should repeal the whole thing if we want to do something. I challenge Mr. Ahlers to repeal it all and I will have a signing person come and testify to help.
Barry, you and I know the Governor isn’t citing Scalia as a great thinker. He’s citing Scalia to tweak the right-wingers who are pushing this bad bill. The best thing that could come of that reference would be for the right-wingers to do exactly what you did, start denying the greatness of Scalia. Hee hee!
Jim Bolin may live.
You are the one singing Scalia’s praise and I NEVER thought highly of Scalia. I listen to the SCOTUS on CSpan and always thought his arguments and points were shallow and sometimes not even related to the point being argued. One could sometimes hear sighs of the other Judges when he spoke. Wish they had cameras as visual cues are sometimes instructional.
On the Veto:
You are so happy with this Veto of the State Constitution, you don’t care about the 600 who were denied, why they were denied, nor what is their race or sexual preference. Of the 600, we have to assume some are intellectually slow and apply even though they couldn’t pass a background check. That still leaves hundreds who were denied for some reason, and that would be a technicality. Think about it, this is South Dakota, who do you think rich, white, old County Sheriffs would deny on a technicality? What technicalities would the rich, white, old men in the Legislature write for a Sheriff who wished to deny without a valid reason?
You unquestioningly accept the premise that 100% of the denials were justified and no journalistic investigation is needed. Good Veto, nothing to see here. Move along, we have Protest Laws now.
I did not praise Scalia. I pointed out the Governor’s strategic citation of a source.
This is not a veto of any constitution. There is no constitutional right to hide firearms on one’s person; concealed carry is not inherent to the right to bear arms.
You are reaching far beyond the content of the article to make arguments that don’t stick.
On SB 164 I agree and disagree with you, Cory.
I agree we should strive to help teenagers, rather than lock them up, especially if there is evidence of a mental illness.
The bill maintains certain conditions before locking them up. It leaves some discretion to the judge. The problem is there is no consistency between judges or sentences.