Press "Enter" to skip to content

NRA to SD Legislators: Override Permitless Concealed Carry Veto, Get More Points!

The National Rifle Association’s PAC is pushing South Dakota legislators to override Governor Dennis Daugaard’s veto of House Bill 1072, Rep. Lynne DiSanto’s proposal to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. NRA is promising overriders extra points on their NRA ratings:

National Rifle Association of America

Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7400
Daniel J. Hall
State Liaison
Date: March 22, 2017
To: Members, South Dakota Legislature
From: Daniel J. Hall
RE: HB1072—Constitutional Carry—VETO OVERRIDE

The NRA-ILA strongly supports an effort to override the governor’s veto of HB1072-Constitutional Carry.

Facts regarding the bill:

–Allows law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon without first being required to obtain a state issued permit.

–Makes no changes to provisions regarding who can legally carry/own a concealed weapon, or where a concealed weapon can be carried.

–Makes no changes to private property owners’ rights to allow/prohibit weapons on their property.

–Makes no changes to the current permitting process, as the permit is needed for reciprocity with other states.

This is a top priority bill for the NRA, and any veto override vote will be heavily weighted.[NRA-ILA, memo to South Dakota legislators, 2017.03.22]

No word from NRA on whether legislators will get extra points for overriding Governor Daugaard’s veto of House Bill 1156, the measure allowing non-law enforcement civilians to carry concealed pistols in the Capitol.


  1. Loren 2017-03-24 09:38

    So it’s about racking up points with the NRA and not about the safety and welfare of the citizenry? Our NRA faithful ought to fall for that.

  2. jerry 2017-03-24 10:51

    I wonder when free men will stop the yoke of tyranny the NRA imposes upon them for the organizations own pockets.

  3. mike from iowa 2017-03-24 11:19

    When does the NRA allow concealed carry at their national conventions?
    They only want concealed carry everywhere except around themselves. I wonder why?

  4. Don Coyote 2017-03-24 11:55

    @mikelostiniowa: “When does the NRA allow concealed carry at their national conventions? They only want concealed carry everywhere except around themselves. I wonder why?”

    Not sure what your source of information is but it appears that the NRA allows concealed carry at their annual meeting in accordance with state and local laws and when facilities permit it.

    “Firearms Policy for the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings:
    During the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted in the Georgia World Congress Center and the Omni Atlanta Hotel at CNN Center in accordance with Georgia law. However, firearms are not allowed in the remainder of the CNN Center, including the food court and shops. When carrying your firearm, remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.”

  5. Roger Elgersma 2017-03-24 11:58

    The bill to allow permitless concealed carry had nothing to do with the idea that it was a good idea. It was just based on when someone with an open carry permit accidentally on purpose would drop their coat on their gun so it could not be seen by a cop. That way they can conceal their gun from the cop without being illegal. They have absolutely no logic and have no concern for anyone but themselves.

  6. Ed 2017-03-24 12:18

    I’m puzzled that our Republican legislators were so bothered by an out of state group helping to fund the effort to pass IM-22 that they used that as one of their main reasons in repealing it and thumbing their noses at the voters that passed it. Yet, the likes of Greenfields, Novstrup, and their comrades apparently have no problem getting their marching orders from a group from Fairfax, Virginia. Wow! They’ll even get extra points for their efforts if they do what they’re told by THIS out of state group. Republican hypocrisy never seems to have any limits.

  7. jerry 2017-03-24 14:03

    The NRA knows that there flock is a bunch of bed wetters so they toss them the bait to get more money sent to them. What the NRA should be discussing is the takeover of the country by Russia while there rank and file dither and wring their hands. If only we had more concealed guns, then we could stop peeing our pants, until then, they will have to open carry. Oh the humanity of that. Everyone then could see their silliness.

  8. John W 2017-03-24 14:50

    The majority of SD legislators lamented bitterly that out of state influence conspired with a disenfranchised bunch of local citizens to construct and promote IM-22 to the detriment of the entire state. By golly, SD should be treated with more respect and consideration than that. These out of state interests aren’t welcome to dabble in our affairs and tip our sovereignty on it’s ear. We’ll show those people whose in charge around here!!! We’ll just trash IM-22 and replace it with stuff that we think up; no matter that the substance of the contrived legislation was no better than bilge water.

    Now these same state’s rights champions are giving audience to idle threats and political intimidation by the NRA and the mentally disjointed members of the South Dakota Gun Owners Association; an incoherent fringe organization that has been invited to leave more than one SD legislative Committee Hearing in the past due to incivility and just plain down right psychotic behavior. What ought to scare the heck out of everybody is the appearance that DiSanto, Qualm, and others have gotten into bed with the gun rights lunatic fringe on a mission to turn this state into a gun free for all.

    “Some (restrictions on right to possession firearms) undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time” the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as “frighting,” where people “carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor.”

    “So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

    The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

    In this Case, Governor Daugaard is 100 spot on. What part of Scalia’s legal commentary she, Qualm and the NRA don’t get is reason enough to question both their legislative integrity but also their ability to think and reason in the best interests of the public.

  9. mike from iowa 2017-03-24 17:02

    Mangy Coyote-where you at, Bud? You got me. The NRA did allow concealed carry at the gunshow (where none of the exhibited guns were allowed to be in working order). Ammosexuals couldn’t go to the other venue packing heat.

  10. mike from iowa 2017-03-24 17:03

    There’s a joke there somewhere. Ammosexuals can’t cross the street and carry concealed at the same time. Freakin’ Hillary-ous.

  11. leslie 2017-03-24 17:27

    Scalia in “Heller”: ” nothing in [my] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    Senstive places. State Capitol. You are welcome.

  12. Rorschach 2017-03-24 19:18

    “Override permitless concealed carry veto, get more points!”

    Cory has misinterpreted the NRA memo. The NRA is not offering a carrot to legislators, it’s waiving a stick.

    The caption of this article should more properly read, “Override permitless concealed carry veto or have your rating lowered considerably.”

  13. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-03-25 13:38

    Come on, Ror, can’t I try to be positive? :-)

    Carrot or stick, yes, Loren, it’s all about points, not promoting the general welfare.

  14. barry freed 2017-03-27 09:53

    Scalia’s opinions were most often activist, and also childish in logic, as evidenced with Heller. It amazes me that D’s swoon over this Reagan appointee from the shallow end of the thought pool.

    What Scalia and The Founders believed:
    *Women can be denied the vote
    *Blacks can be owned and sold
    *Natives can be murdered, their property seized
    *Homosexuality is sodomy

    The Founders had good ideas, but they were swayed by their own self interests, like Scalia. They left us an outline that is sometimes vague, and sometimes it is spelled out for us in detail, though they themselves, did not embrace it fully when it came to minorities. It must evolve and needs to be expanded, not picked away piece by piece, as our Governor and Legislature just did with Free Assembly and as Cory would do to the 2A.

    From Leslie’s citation:
    Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” “such as cannons”. Of course he had no proof of his claim.
    Hand held 13th Century cannon:

    “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
    What limitations, what arms, where is his proof? An activist Judge like Scalia will lie and cheat to win, such as attributing the King’s gun edicts to the Founders. He makes this outlandish statement, but if there were any such limitations, they would be well known and in every one of Cory’s diatribes.

    “I don’t think the court’s political at all,”
    Yeah? So if it is Pure Constitutional Law, why are decisions all 5 to 4? They should always be nearly unanimous if they are making personal choices instead of rooting out the Constitutional Law of an issue.

    Scalia was full of it by saying we must legislate based on what he thought some long dead people MIGHT have thought. That, or homosexuality is a crime, Black descendants must be returned to their rightful owners’ descendants, and Natives subjugated and returned to reservations.

    Gorsuch sees, based on the US Constitution, electronic searches conducted with scanners from your curb as identical to Colonial Cops peeping in windows. I like that. I wish one of the Senators had enough on the ball to ask about Sobriety Checkpoints, Implied Consent, Data Mining, and Random Drug Testing to ascertain his true dedication to Constitutional Law. Al Franken’s playground questions: “Jimmy said that Sally has a fat ass”… “How do you respond to that?”
    What a waste of time and opportunity by Franken.

    Unlike the Founders, we can now prove scientifically that nobody is genetically inferior, intellectually inferior, or diminished by their sex or skin color. The basic framework is there for us to use, we must only keep the words: “Freedom” and “Fairness” in mind as we move forward to expand our Rights.

  15. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-03-27 17:10

    Lauren, thanks for that link! You inspired quite a blog post:

    Barry, I get the bad feeling we’re not listening to each other. I still don’t see where any Democrats in this discussion or elsewhere have swooned over Scalia. Trump and the GOP do all the swooning. Whatever the quality of his logic, Scalia clearly won the hearts of the conservatives who also preach gun rights as an absolute. It is thus telling to find that even Scalia rejected that absolutism. That’s why, out of numerous possible sources he could have cited to make the same point, Daugaard cited Scalia. I do the same with my blog posts. I can cite George McGovern, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren to support my most of my arguments. But when I can find someone from the farther end of the political spectrum supporting the same point, I’ll note that agreement from the other side to make my point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.