Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 87: Monroe Demands Gun-Free Courthouses Install Firearm Detectors

Senator Jeff Monroe (R-24/Pierre) hasn’t attacked science yet this Session, but he’s starting a gun fight. His Senate Bill 87 starts out as a simple clarification of existing statute exempting officers of the court from the sensible ban on guns in courthouses.

But then Senator Monroe sneaks in Section 2:

No building, structure, park, campus, or other area may be posted as a firearm-free zone for purposes of § 22-14-24 unless reasonable precautions are made to detect the presence of firearms [Senate Bill 87, Section 2, 2018.01.18].

Here we go again: Senator Jeff Monroe pretends to be a conservative Republican who believes in limited government and local control… until he finds an issue he wants to force on everyone. With Senate Bill 87, Senator Monroe would impose an unfunded state mandate on any local county that dares to question his gun theology (a commenter on another post just reintroduced me to the word hoplophilia) by making them buy expensive metal detectors along with their signs telling citizens not to bring their guns into the courtroom or the county treasurer’s office.

But if Monroe can sneak his big-government, anti-local-control measure through the Republican Legislature, maybe counties can still get around it. Monroe, like other Republican legislators, writes poorly. SB 87 calls for “reasonable precautions are made to detect the presence of firearms.” If I’m a county commissioner dealing with a tight budget, I could have the sheriff or a deputy walk through the courthouse every now and then to eye visitors and keep them honest. Maybe I train my courthouse staff to look for funny bulges. Those are both “reasonable precautions.”

Senator Monroe isn’t trying to make anyone safer. He’s peddling the NRA mythology that people should be able to carry guns wherever the heck they want, regardless of the real threats that pistol-packing may pose to judges, elected officials, and democracy in general. And in his pro-gun fervor, he forgets that his party supposedly frowns on big governments bossing around small governments.


  1. Jason 2018-01-20 08:27

    Please explain in detail how a gun free zone would prevent a bad guy from killing a good guy with a gun?

    Why don’t you want people to be able to defend themselves anywhere?

  2. mike from iowa 2018-01-20 08:36

    Imagine the homophobia that would literally explode in Pierre if the county assigned someone to walk around and pat down male and female bulges that look fake. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha! Wingnuts. Lord love ’em because I don’t.

  3. mike from iowa 2018-01-20 08:40

    Why don’t you want people to be able to defend themselves anywhere?

    What makes you believe you are up to that task? I’ve noticed in crowded situations when the lead starts to fly, gun carriers duck like the rest so they don’t get shot by law enforcement, who BTW, get paid to protect citizens from bad guys with guns.

  4. Jason 2018-01-20 08:43

    You have noticed Mke? Please tell us about these situation you were physically at?

  5. Jason 2018-01-20 08:46


    When someone starts shooting at you, you duck, find cover, and shoot back.

    It’s common sense.

  6. Nick Nemec 2018-01-20 08:57

    Gun nuts greatly over estimate the incidence of the need for armed self defense.

  7. Chuck-Z 2018-01-20 08:59

    Perhaps the good guys with guns should wear specially colored clothing, so they are not accidently shot by law enforcement when the bullets inevitably start flying. I would think they would want to do this, as concerned about their personal safety as they are in these high stress, dangerous environments that we call South Dakota courtrooms.

  8. Jason 2018-01-20 09:10

    Chuck, are you saying cops aren’t smart enough to tell who is shooting at good people and the good people shooting at the bad guy?

    How many schools have cops in them Chuck?

  9. Jason 2018-01-20 09:12


    You are free to gamble with your life. I will not, and I will not let you keep me defenseless.

  10. Jason 2018-01-20 09:25

    Ray, they can be shot outside of the courthouse. There are also nonmetallic guns and ammo that can be brought into a courthouse.

  11. Jenny 2018-01-20 10:15

    Gee. I didn’t know South Dakota was that dangerous of a place to live, Jason. No wonder no one wants to live there. Muslims moving to Aberdeen, Trangenders waiting to grab our daughters in the bathrooms, and interfaith worship at the Capital! God help us! But by golly the ammosexuals us!

  12. mike from iowa 2018-01-20 10:18

    You have noticed Mke? Please tell us about these situation you were physically at?

    Where did I say I was physically anywhere where shooting was going on?

    In Houston when the sniper started shooting police, all the good guys with guns hit the decks because nobody knew where the shooter was.

    In Oregon at Umpqua Comm College, 10 people were shot and numerous CC students stated they would not draw their guns for fear of being shot by LEOs.

    Last year in Las Vegas many CCholders siad they were afraid to be mistaken for the sniper so they left their guns in their holsters.

  13. jerry 2018-01-20 11:12

    What was really terrible about that shooting in Pennington County is that we got Kevin Brady in the US House. That nutjob and our little nutjob NOem were the two dingalings that wrote the tax scam.

  14. Roger Cornelius 2018-01-20 12:46

    Just curious as to whether or not Monroe received any of that Russian/NRA money to promote SB 87.

  15. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-01-21 08:19

    Jason, the best way to defend ourselves is to establish a culture in which it is taboo to bring firearms into a courthouse, a Capitol, or any similar hall of democracy. Monroe lives in a Wild West mindset that puts judges, county officials, and others in greater danger.

  16. grudznick 2018-01-21 12:45

    Mr. mike is from Iowa, so he may indeed be frequently in situations to notice and observe human behavior when the lead starts to fly. Here, in South Dakota, it is a very rare occurrence even at the malls in Sioux Falls. The easiest solution would be to have volunteers to a pat-down search of anybody they found suspicious as people are entering these zones.

  17. jerry 2018-01-21 14:51

    Very interesting Roger and spot on. As the NRA is a political fundraising arm and money laundering arm of the Russian government, that would mean that if you get a high mark from the NRA, you are actually getting a high mark from the Russian government. So then, the only way they can define themselves is by declaring their alliance to Putin/Russia.

  18. Kurt 2018-01-21 16:24

    Well, my dad, who was a WW2 marine and a hunter, taught me at a tender age that hand guns were invented in antiquity for the purpose of shooting people at close range. Usually, when the smoke clears, someone you didn’t really want to shoot! Hunters have always chosen long arms.

    This current explosion of concealed and open carry pistols sure doesn’t make me feel safer!

    By their nature a hand gun is almost always pointed at someone. Either the carrier or someone around him. A long arm, on the other hand is easy to keep pointed in a safe direction. I’ve hunted with people that couldn’t keep their firearm pointed safely….. but only ONCE! I personally know three people who have accidentally shot themselves with their pistol.

    Its a sick,sick world we are living in right now! Just saying.


  19. Jason 2018-01-24 00:00


    You have no personal experience to talk about gun violence. You alluded to that in your first post but I called you out on your lie. You can’t notice crap from watching on tv. You are not very smart Mike.

    Mike, have you ever fired a handgun in real life?

  20. Jason 2018-01-24 00:04


    If you can guarantee nobody sane or insane will try to kill me, I will be on your side. You know that you can’t stop anybody from killing you anywhere unless you have something to defend yourself with.

    I will be happy to discuss this with you on the radio.

  21. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-01-24 06:04

    Thank goodness for absolutes to spare you from making rational arguments, Jason.

    Jason, I’ll let you carry your gun anywhere if you can guarantee that you will never go insane and start shooting at innocent people, that no insane or just mildly grumpy person will ever take it from you and start shooting, that you’ll never respond to a perceived threat and accidentally shoot innocent bystanders, and that you’ll never drop or otherwise mishandle the gun in such a way that it discharges accidentally.

    Radio? When and where?

  22. jason 2018-01-24 07:32


    It doesn’t work that way. You’re arguing that no one should drive since you can’t guarantee there would be no accident.

    LIke I said, you are free to not defend yourself. I have the God given right and the 2nd amendment to defend myself. I have already proven that a gun ban in the courthouse is useless because of nonmetallic guns and ammo.

  23. mike from iowa 2018-01-24 07:56

    Got a live here, again.

    You have no personal experience to talk about gun violence. You alluded to that in your first post but I called you out on your lie. You can’t notice crap from watching on tv. You are not very smart Mike.

    Mike, have you ever fired a handgun in real life?

    Since I wasn’t in Las Vegas or SandyHook School, those mass murders didn’t happen, right, Sport? Speaking of liars. I do not have teevee and haven’t for at least the last 2 years. I have owned and used, responsibly, handguns.And you are a lying troll.
    Ever heard of eye witnesses who were in the line of fire and survived to tell their stories? If you are supposed to be a smart person, heaven help us all.

  24. mike from iowa 2018-01-24 07:58

    Sorry to inform you, Jason, but there is no god. He/she/it is imaginary like most of what you believe passes as 2nd Amendment rights. Nice try, though.

  25. Ryan 2018-01-24 09:45

    Dang it, mfi beat me to the punch of laughing at jason for thinking god exists and gave him rights to tangible personal property. What a silly god jason must believe it. His god thinks like this…

    “I shall create man. Then I shall create conflict. Then man shall fight. Then I shall give men the right to own trinkets to make the fight more deadly.”

    Good one, god.

  26. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-01-25 06:22

    No, Jason, you want it to work that way, so I’m just beating you with your own stick. You demand absolute certainty before you accept my position as policy. I thus can demand absolute certainty from you before I accept your position as policy. Your absolute demand is based on a danger that may or may not materialize… and empirically, I’ve walked into county courthouses dozens of times and not once been subject to a violent attack, so the chances of the danger against which you ask me to permit arms in the courthouse is close to zero than to 100%. My absolute demand is based on a danger that you 100% present every time you enter the courthouse with a gun.

    My absolute is bigger than your absolute… and you’ve offered no defense, just another whiny diversion when faced with an argument you can’t beat.

  27. jason 2018-01-25 07:16


    When are you going to address the fact that not even a metal detector can prevent a gun being brought into the courthouse?

    I’m glad you have never been attacked in a courthouse. There are mentally unstable people in every State.

    Please explain how i am a danger If I carry a gun into a courthouse?

  28. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-01-25 07:36

    I don’t have to address that fact; I can cite the inability of metal detectors to prevent guns coming in as a good reason to vote down SB 87. Thanks for helping.

    I already did explain how you are a danger when you bring a gun anywhere. If you have a gun, you create a risk that that gun will go off, deliberately or accidentally, that is not present if you don’t bring the gun. Absolute, unavoidable. Courthouses are safer if we all leave our guns outside. Vote No on SB 87.

  29. Jason 2018-01-25 07:53


    Are you now arguing that police should not carry firearms in a courthouse?

  30. Ryan 2018-01-25 08:55

    I’ll make that argument – police should not carry guns in courthouses. Police should not carry guns most of the places they go. Guns make people feel different, and usually not for the better. Most police officers in other developed countries don’t carry the firepower we give our poorly trained officers, and the rates of violent interactions with citizens is much lower everywhere outside of our borders. We have militarized our police while providing them with less education and fewer resources than we provide for our actual military. People have a general idea that the cops all around them are somehow elite specialists in law enforcement, physical combat, and weapons handling, when the reality is they are mostly just average joes who learn as they go, especially in rural areas. I think police with guns are more likely to escalate a nonviolent situation into a violent one than police who are trained in weaponless encounters.

  31. John W. 2018-01-28 20:35

    25 years packing heat and a badge and I’ll state flat out that Jason has no clue. There can be no assumptions made by police which guys with guns are good or bad. Law enforcement is taught to recognize threats and neutralize them using the principles of the force continuum. Anybody carrying a gun in an active shooter situation is a threat. He drops the gun immediately without question or he’s swiss cheese. The common citizen carrying a handgun that becomes involved in a fire fight succumbs to stress more easily and dramatically than a police officer that has qualified with a PDW under stress conditions. As a retired LEO, the last thing I want or need is an overly confident, under qualified, private gunny spraying and praying trying to neutralize a threat and causing injury to persons and property and creating liability issues for both he and his family.

    Go ahead and carry a gun where ever you choose Jason. There are many criminals and particularly gang members that are highly trained to take your gun away from you and shoot you with it before you can take two breaths. There are decades of records of police officers shot with their own guns and you hold yourself out to be more capable and tactically competent than trained and seasoned police officers. I don’t think so.

    And for the record Ryan: What information or data do you have to show that police officers are poorly trained and ill equipped to perform to their utmost. I am testament to 25 years of some of the most intensive, up to date, bi-annual and specialty training to be found in this country sponsored by federal state and local governments and that includes firearms training, defensive tactics, street survival, terrorism prevention, and the list goes on. Until you walk a mile in a cops boots you have no understanding of what they do, how they do it, why they do it, or how well they do it. Police officers are involved in shootings every week in the US and with rare exceptions, they are deemed justifiable by review. There is rarely collateral damage and that is a direct reflection on training, experience, planning and preparation.

  32. Jason 2018-01-29 08:20

    John W.

    Of course there can be no assumptions. I hope you weren’t trained to fire at people with guns not firing at you?

    If a cop shoots a good guy firing at a bad guy, that cop is in the wrong.

    There decades of more of people defending themselves and living than cops getting killed by their own gun.

    You don’t need to be smart to be a cop John.

  33. mike from iowa 2018-01-29 09:55

    But, but John W, forcing any concealed carrier to drop their gun violates some right or another- just ask the Russia/NRA.

    The reason people carry concealed is so no one knows they are carrying. That would be equivalent to outing Gays- maybe.

    Being at the mercy of so many irresponsible concealed carrying gun owners is the price you pay for voting for right wing nut jobs.( aimed at everyone and no one in particular ).

  34. John W. 2018-01-29 10:30

    Jason: The attitude you demonstrate is the best reason there is to tighten and improve concealed carry regulations rather than liberalize them. Society does not need haughty simpletons running around thinking they have qualification and superiority to address firearm violence in public. You want to protect your home and property from armed intrusion, be my guest but I don’t want you or anyone like you packing heat in public thinking your the champion defender of the public from crime and violence because your not and never will be. Shooting at people is serious business and you’ll note that the police, the military, etc. receive months and years of training in preparation for careful and responsible neutralization of threats to life and property. You have no data or verifiable information or statistic that shows “decades of more people defending themselves and living than cops getting killed with their own side arm”. Produce it. You can’t and you won’t so your theory is junk. Try going to the FBI statistics for mental adjustment.

    I am an off duty police officer or even a plain clothes officer on my way home from work when I witness a road rage incident and a driver getting shot at by another motorist. I get out of my vehicle and attempt to get the combatants to disengage and a stand off insues with both of them turning their their guns on me. Then the uniforms show up with their long guns and try to figure out just who are the good guys and who are the bad ones with bullets flying back and forth risking the lives of bystanders as well as the police.

    And so here is Jason with his Taurus 9mm tucked in it’s pancake under his shirt at the county fair when the next psycho turns his AR clone on the crowd from a distance of 200 yards. Jason hauls out his 9mm and begins to launch rounds at the perp with no accuracy or hope of hitting the guy thusly attracting attention to himself and all those near by. The perp shifts focus from a general target to Jason and all his unarmed friends and let’s loose with a semi-auto barage that leaves ol Jason and several other people laying bloody in the dirt……… There’s your pseudo confidence Jason………..

    The “you don’t need to be smart to be a cop” is just another reason to make sure that gun freaks and off their rocker ammo sexuals are thoroughly educated, trained and responsibility confirmed before letting them onto the streets with handguns. They not only don’t understand situational awareness but they aren’t intelligent enough to understand when they insult the intelligence and intuition of the police.

  35. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 10:44

    Since visiting this blog, I have changed my stance on conceal carry. If I ever found myself in a shooting situation where we all were in a store/room. I would allow the shooter to shoot everyone until he points the gun at me. I will not save any life with my weapon that doesn’t want to be saved by me. I will only take that risk when my life is on the line. Without knowing who would not want my help, I will assume that is everyone. He/she may kill 10 people before he gets to me, but that is not my problem, nor will i do anything about it.

  36. John W. 2018-01-29 11:09

    Yet another reason to revisit concealed carry and strengthen the requirements. Another would be champion of the public’s security that needs a lesson in firearm responsibility and his duty to his fellow citizens. Your comments, Daniel, epitomize the reasons why we need and have well trained, responsible and dedicated police officers that aspire to a much higher level of nobility and achievement. As a gun owner, collector, firearm safety instructor, military trained weapons and systems maintenance officer, gun smith, 25 year veteran of law enforcement and all the training that went with it, I’m prepared to say Daniel, that you’re a disgrace to the 2nd Amendment and all responsible firearms owners. You’re the exact reason why this nation needs to revisit and reframe it’s policies on the 2nd Amendment to improve not only societies safety and security but also it’s demeanor toward guns. As I go through an upcoming “enhanced carry” training class (even though my retired LEO card permits me to concealed carry) I’ll be thinking of yet more reasons why I don’t want you or anyone like you anywhere close to me in public. You’re more dangerous and unreasonable than the deranged individual that goes on tilt.

  37. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 11:16

    How so John? I am an NRA certified instructor. I have taken numerous enhanced classes. I have been told time and time again that you don’t want a bunch of people shooting in the event of something going wrong. I am telling you that I have heard what you are saying and I will no longer consider using my weapon to protect others for fear of being shot by the good guys. I will only protect myself and my family. What am i missing here? How am I more dangerous by keeping my weapon concealed in the event of a shooting? Are you saying I should pull that baby out and start blasting? I thought that is what you guys are aruging about? A bunch of us conceal carriers pulling out our weapons when we shouldn’t? What is it? Of course we need better and more trained LEO. When you pay for the bottom of the barrel, expect to get it.

  38. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 11:25

    Why would I risk being shot by police in the event of a shooting to save someone else? You just said that cops are more than likely not be able to identify a good guy from a bad guy. I am not going to put myself in that position unless I am protecting myself or my family. Why risk being shot by LEO to save someone I don’t know? I thought I was doing exactly as you said. Sit back and let the experts do their job unless i have to do it to protect myself or my property. Outside of that, why should I risk anything?

  39. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 11:27

    How am I more dangerous John by keeping my gun holstered? Let’s hear it…..

  40. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 11:29

    “You’re more dangerous and unreasonable than the deranged individual that goes on tilt.”

    How so?

  41. John W. 2018-01-29 11:55

    What you don’t seem to understand Daniel is that you have a duty, albeit a complete responsibility in civil law to your fellow citizens that is further exaggerated by your concealed carry permit. The “enhanced carry” classes and your supposed NRA instructor qualification should have taught you that and if it didn’t you weren’t paying attention. What you assume is that packing heat is the license you need to address violence with violence in public without consideration of all the other alternatives that police use every day. By saying you’re just going to stand by and let people get shot until the perp turns the gun on you insults your duty and responsibility as a citizen and even more so as somebody whose allegedly been trained to some degree in public safety. Keeping your gun holstered isn’t the only action you can and should take in those circumstances and failure to recognize either those options or your civic responsibility represents negligence. Allowing people to get shot up is not only irresponsible and unreasonable but it is dangerous. If you want to act on behalf of the police, and seek the opportunity to use deadly force, you have a inferred. Take charge, help people take cover, move them to a safer position, redirect the focus of the shooter, etc. You have a responsibility to adopt a higher standard of behavior and thought in critical situations. What you don’t seem to get is that there are hundreds of people out there carrying guns that don’t seem to believe they can exacerbate a problem rather than solve it. You do that by simply doing nothing, in spite of all that training, and leaving people in harms way………… And when you do draw your gun and start shooting, what critical stress training have you had that improves your marksmanship? Your training should have shown you that in high stress situations, your accuracy goes right down the toilet unless you’ve trained and prepared consistently under stress. No matter how well intended, your shooting is going to go to heck in a hand basket and increase the risk of collateral damage as well as cause first responders to consider yet another threat. If you can’t understand all the risks and all the potential issues involved in a threat situation, the wisest thing to do is leave the gun at home and develop planned alternatives.

    Paying for the bottom of the barrel? I don’t know what that means but it has nothing to do with police response to active shooters etc. It’s the training and qualification. You don’t have any position to evaluate until you’ve trained to police standards both initially and on an annual basis.

  42. mike from iowa 2018-01-29 12:07

    Protecting us unarmed libs was one of the reasons given why we need more people to carry guns.

    I’ll gladly take my chances with a certified madman than anyone certified by today’s NRA with Russia money. And this isn’t personal. I do not feel safer with who knows who is a walking arsenal just itching to be a hero. Seen this rodeo before. Didn’t like it the first time.

  43. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 12:13

    “By saying you’re just going to stand by and let people get shot until the perp turns the gun on you insults your duty and responsibility as a citizen and even more so as somebody whose allegedly been trained to some degree in public safety.”

    That is simply your opinion. I will not be charged for failing to protect others. In fact, you told me I will probably be shot because trigger happy cops have no ability to identify friend from foe.

    “Keeping your gun holstered isn’t the only action you can and should take in those circumstances and failure to recognize either those options or your civic responsibility represents negligence.”

    Once again, that is simply your opinion. Please show me a case in which a conceal carrier is charged for not using his/her weapon in the event of a shooting. I have no obligation to do your job for you. I would argue that it is more of a liability to assume such a position and it only opens me up to civil lawsuits in the event that an innocent bystander is hit by a ricochet. I am not protected under the same laws as leo therefore I should only worry about protecting myself.

    “If you want to act on behalf of the police, and seek the opportunity to use deadly force, you have a inferred.”

    I don’t want to act on behalf of the police. I only seek to protect myself and my family. I have no obligation to go any further.

    “And when you do draw your gun and start shooting, what critical stress training have you had that improves your marksmanship? Your training should have shown you that in high stress situations, your accuracy goes right down the toilet unless you’ve trained and prepared consistently under stress. ”

    I do very well in high stress situations due to my training as a fire fighter. I also have been shot at in two separate occasions. Once during a vehicle repossession where the back window was shot out as we left and another while trespassing(unknowingly) on land when I was a youth. I don’t feel any of that is really pertinent to being able to carry a weapon for my own protection. Even if I don’t feel I have the training to protect others, that is not what the 2nd amendment is about. It is about protecting myself and my property because the police have no obligation to do that for me.

    ” If you can’t understand all the risks and all the potential issues involved in a threat situation, the wisest thing to do is leave the gun at home and develop planned alternatives.”

    Once again, I should not have to worry about a situation where I have to protect others when the only reason I carry is to protect myself and my family. If a first responder can’t tell a good guy from a bad guy, then they don’t deserve a badge. I know you guys just shoot everyone carrying a gun even before they point it at you, but you shouldn’t have to worry about that with me because I’m not going to take it out unless I have to and by that point, either the shooter or I will be dead.

    “You don’t have any position to evaluate until you’ve trained to police standards both initially and on an annual basis.”

    What’s the training these days? There is a reason why the pay is so low….because the bar is just as low to qualify.

  44. Jason 2018-01-29 12:19

    John W.

    You think someone who owns a handgun is going to fire at someone 200 yards away?

    The broad assumptions you are making are making you look like an idiot.

    Yes, it’s true to you don’t need to be smart to be a cop.

    Minneapolis hires people just based on what Country they were born in.

    How did that turn out for the City?

    Like I said,

    No one can they can prevent somebody from killing a person in a courthouse.

  45. John W. 2018-01-29 12:46

    If you don’t think somebody carries a handgun to defend themselves in an active shooter situation, then why would you think it necessary to carry a handgun in defense of an active shooter with an AR clone or similar shoulder fired weapon? The broad assumptions you make are a listless demonstration of failure to deal with reality. The weapon of choice in nearly all of the public shootings in the last several years has been semi-automatic black guns and there is a reason for that. Those sorts of people fully understand they have the advantage(both tactical and positional) to overwhelm people who believe themselves to be superior in self defense. Draw your concealed handgun Jason and charge or maneuver against the shooter and see how you come out. If you aren’t prepared to do that, they why do you think it necessary to carry a handgun in the first place. And your statements about Minneapolis Police Officers hiring practices are as warped and unconscious as a drunk on opiods. I know and have worked with police officers from Minnesota that demonstrate more intelligence and good will than any thought you’ve offered here Jason and I’ll go so far as to say I know more college trained police officers that have greater intelligence, a greater sense of duty and accountability, and more civic mindedness than you will ever develop with the attitude you presently have. And for the record, my county court house has a full time screening crew, complete with metal detection equipment, that has been in place for over ten years and we have yet to have a shooting in the building or even outside the building. We have had people detected with guns, knives and other weapons. Your complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter and the reality in society renders you incapable of rational thought on the issue and is further evidence that non-thinkers like you shouldn’t be allowed to carry personal defense or para-military weapons in public. Mental menaces are just as dangerous as physical ones.

  46. Jason 2018-01-29 12:58


    Did you know they sold semi-auto rifles during the ban they had?

    I would fire at somebody firing at me with a rifle in they were in handgun range. If they aren’t, than I wouldn’t.

    I already informed you that you can bring nonmetallic guns and ammo into a courthouse and not be detected.

  47. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 13:07

    I’m still waiting to see where it says in the 2nd amendment that in order for me to exercise my rights to protect myself and my property I am under a legal obligation to protect others…….

  48. John W. 2018-01-29 13:16

    Daniel: You fail to consider the entire body of common law that has a rich history of suit and remedy for negligent behavior and responsibility of due care for the welfare of your fellow citizens.

  49. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 13:18

    Show me a case where a conceal carrier is held liable for not using their weapon in defense of others.

  50. owen reitzel 2018-01-29 13:37

    Where in the 2nd Amendment gives anybody the right to conceal carry?

  51. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-29 13:42

    Where in the 1st amendment does it give you the right to free speech on the internet?

  52. bearcreekbat 2018-01-29 16:58

    I wonder if 17 year old Trayvon Martin felt safe and protected by a “good guy” with a gun. At least until the “good guy” mistook Trayvon for a bad guy and shot him to death.

    Or how about this innocent fellow who was fighting off two carjackers when a good guy intervened with his gun:

    Houston police say that an armed man’s attempt to stop a carjacking went terribly wrong on Saturday night when he shot the vehicle’s owner in the head, then fled the scene.

  53. Jason 2018-01-29 22:10


    Trayvon wasn’t innocent. He was the aggressor.

    So you think people shouldn’t be able to defend their lives because one guy missed?

    You do realize that police are called after you are dead right?

    Daniel has really given me something to think about.

    Unfortunately, I can’t ask if they are Democrat after the shooting starts.


    Here is a video for you to watch.

    Police officer misses suspect, shoots passenger

  54. John W. 2018-01-29 22:56

    False equivalent Daniel. You change directions quickly. There is nothing in Constitutional Law that authorizes concealed carry or any sort of carry and due to the absence of that language in the constitution, the onus falls on the states to regulate firearm use as each sees fit. It is not noxious to the constitution for a state to prohibit carrying firearms in one circumstance or another. A state can’t, by supreme court interpretation, prevent a person from keeping firearms (except felons- which proves that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute) but a state can and sometimes does dictate how and where those firearms can be possessed and used in public. Your concealed carry permit is direct evidence of that. The entire argument that the Constitution authorizes citizens to possess and use firearms of any kind without condition is a bogus argument.
    You pose an irrelevant question but all that aside, there is likely no liability for not using your weapon in defense of others but that wasn’t the premise for the discussion. The liability and failure to exercise due care is fully operative on the use or attempted use of deadly force. And that is the entire focus of this discussion. You are permitted by the state to carry a weapon concealed on your person or in your vehicle without legal consequence. However, you do not share the sovereign immunity of certified law enforcement nor are you insulated from the full force and affect of judicial review and civil suit and remedy for your behavior no matter how righteous you believe it to be. But what you do share is a highly elevated expectation of responsibility and due care when you use or attempt to use deadly force and that is the obvious and strict purpose and intent of the concealed weapon. Were it not, you’d be carrying something non-lethal like pepper spray. bearcreekbat posts a good example of both the negligence as well as reckless use of firearms that most of us in society and within the police establishment are most concerned about. When you advocate for firearm use and concealed carry, I understand that you speak for your self but there is only one of you and hundreds if not thousands of others that aren’t you, and like old Jason above, that doesn’t think before he says or does something. More firearms in public places just increases the risks of harm to a mostly unarmed population that doesn’t want to be armed.

    Now on to Jason: I have no idea what selling semi auto rifles during the Reagan ban has to do with the topic at hand. You do a pretty good job of misdirecting the discussion for no apparent reason.

    I would fire at someone using a rifle if they were in handgun range. If they weren’t, I wouldn’t. And just what is “handgun range”? I know a couple of folks that shoot handguns made for big game hunting at distances out to 150 yards with pretty good accuracy. I also know a lot of handgun shooters that can’t put 5 out of 10 rounds inside the 2 ring at 25 yards. And then there is the real issue of distance estimation and perhaps doing so under stress. You’re not talking about hand gun range so let’s be brutally honest here……. We’re talking about your accuracy and any range not the maximum effective range of a particular gun or cartridge. So tell all the rest of us that you have the ability to run 150 yards as fast as you can, unholster your hand gun of choice and shoot 14 rounds into a 12 inch stationary target at 25 yards; how about 10 yards. How about a 12 inch target moving at 4 miles per hour. Or perhaps 25 yards. If your not going to shoot at a perp carrying a paramilitary AR at some distance you believe to be out of some nebulous handgun range, what is the sense of you having or carrying a concealed handgun. When the police show up at an active shooter situation, what are they carrying and why?
    You further display your ignorance of the topic by asserting that non-metalic guns can be carried, undetected, into places like court houses.
    1. I’ve done more than my share of research on the topic of non-metalic guns and I have yet to find anything that is available to the public or even terrorists. I’ll post some rhetoric from one of my favorite gun publishers.
    We’ll quote you the pertinent dialogue: “That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me, you know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn’t show up on your airport metal detectors and probably costs more than what you make in a month.” According to our research, the problem isn’t that the German porcelain gun is expensive; it’s that it’s imaginary. First off, there isn’t a Glock 7, but more importantly, there’s no such thing as an entirely ceramic handgun. It’s easy to make the frame or magazine of a gun out of some non-metal polymer, but things like the barrel and the pins are under way too much heat and pressure to be made of anything but good old-fashioned metal.
    And to add finality to your advance of fiction Jason; I suggest you read the entirety of the ‘Undetectable Firearms Act” that was extended for another 10 years in 2013
    The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not as detectable by walk-through metal detection as a security exemplar containing 3.7 oz (105 g) of steel, or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image before standard airport imaging technology.
    As mentioned previously, I don’t want people like you, who demonstrate no knowledge or accumen of firearms possession or usage anywhere near me in a public place and particuarly if they’ve been issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Reckless, irresponsible thought translates into the same type of actions. I won’t dignify more of your ill informed argument with a response. My advice is sell your guns to a responsible person before you hurt yourself or someone else. The Marshall Arts are a worthwhile hobby.

  55. Jason 2018-01-30 07:22

    John W.

    “I have no idea what selling semi auto rifles during the Reagan ban”

    I am talking about the 1994 ban. The Reagan ban was for automatic weapons produced after 1986.

    Do you know the difference between semi-automatic rifles and automatic rifles?

    ” I know a couple of folks that shoot handguns made for big game hunting.”

    The key words are “made for big game hunting”. People can shoot farther when the gun is made to do that.

    You might not realize this but there are more people as qualified or better than police officers at marksmanship in the US.

    Let’s talk about the percentage of people that are already dead when the police show at at an active shooter event.

    I am going to carry and try not to be one of those dead people. You can wait around for the police to come and call the coroner to collect your dead body.

    “I’ve done more than my share of research on the topic of non-metalic guns and I have yet to find anything that is available to the public or even terrorists.”

    I have also. It took 2 seconds to be able to call you a liar.

    The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)

    I’m guessing you included that law because you think it’s going to stop a bad guy from making an undetectable gun? lol.

    From reading your diatribe, it is very apparent that you are mentally unhinged. I hope you don’t have any guns in your house.

    As for gun laws, you were able to buy a semi-auto rifle during the 1994 “assault” weapons ban.

    It seems most democrats are as ignorant as you when it comes to guns. I bet 90% of Democrats didn’t know you could buy a semi-auto rifle during the ban.

  56. mike from iowa 2018-01-30 08:11

    Zimmergoon stalked a 17 year old Black kid wearing a hoodie. He was told not to follow the suspect, the real police were on their way. Had he stayed in his truck and followed instructions he would not have murdered a 17 year old Black wearing a hoodie who had every right to confront a thug stalking him.

    Martin had the right to be in that community. Zimmergoon was not even a real Neighborhood Watchman. They have protocols to follow which include not being armed and not following suspects.

    All this I have a right to carry where ever violates my sincerely held religious beliefs that guns kill and should not be allowed in public unless you are actual LEOs.

  57. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 08:59

    ” there is likely no liability for not using your weapon in defense of others but that wasn’t the premise for the discussion.”

    BS John! You tried telling me that I am more dangerous then a killer because I choose to keep my gun holstered.

    “You’re more dangerous and unreasonable than the deranged individual that goes on tilt.”

    Now, you want to walk back those comments? I reaffirm my position, I do not have any obligation to utilize my weapon to protect others and after seeing so many people ask that i don’t even carry one for fear of being shot during a shootout…..I choose to keep my gun holstered until my life is in danger and not someone else’s. I will give them what they ask for and provide no protection because they feel the cops will save them. IF I am sitting next to Jenny or Mike, I’d watch them get shot and wouldn’t display my weapon until I felt I was next. That is what they would want to happen so that is how i will react.

  58. mike from iowa 2018-01-30 09:40

    Daniel, everyday you see evidence of “responsible gun owners” shooting themselves or others, leaving their guns where kids can get at them and all kinds of irresponsible behaviors.

    I wouldn’t trust half the police officers sitting next to me with a loaded gun. You want to play Rambo, go play somewhere else. Your imaginary rights to be heeled don’t trump my rights to feel safe in my space.

    You’re just gonna have to trust the socialist LEOS like everyone else. That is what they get paid for, not you.

  59. mike from iowa 2018-01-30 09:44

    Let’s talk about the percentage of people that are already dead when the police show at at an active shooter event.

    We are all dead, sooner or later, Rambo. Maybe people like you just want to take someone else along with them.

  60. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 09:56

    And that is what I will do, Mike. I will trust that LEO’s will take care of you. I will take care of myself as it is my right. You have nothing to fear from me. I don’t see how keeping my gun holstered makes me Rambo, but whatever. I will not entrust my life to someone else, especially someone who has no obligation to protect me. AS I said before, I will let them shoot you Mike because you don’t want me to protect you. I can respect that.

  61. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 09:59

    For every bs anecdotal story you come up with of someone getting shot by irresponsible behavior….I can show you one were someone was murdered by any weapon because they couldn’t protect themselves. Your weaknesses do not mean my rights go out the window. You are more likely to be killed by someone you know then accidentally shot by someone you don’t know.

  62. bearcreekbat 2018-01-30 10:44

    Okay Daniel, by keeping your gun holstered you just might avoid shooting an innocent person. And when you finally draw it to defend yourself, what happens if there is more than one unarmed bad guy who manage to overpower you and take your gun and use it to kill you and other innocents? A gun at the scene of an assault or other crime creates much more danger to life than there would be without a such weapon present.

  63. John W. 2018-01-30 11:15

    Note Jason the firing pin is made from steel! And the experimental piece was produced under licensed from the fed. No matter, it is still detectable in the new generation walk through detectors.

    Daniel: It occurs to me that a case could be made for negligence in circumstances where a permitted concealed carry person could be sued for failing to use his firearm and training to prevent harm to others, particularly if it can be shown that there was ample and safe opportunity to do so and there was a deliberate decision not to do so. The picture changes if there wasn’t safe opportunity or time to make a rational decision. As mentioned, you are permitted by the state to carry a concealed firearm in public. That permit along with training you allege to have, elevates the responsibility. I’ll also remind you that self defense is a legal argument that has to be proven. It is not a right you have granted by the constitution but rather by either statutory or civil grant or both.

    You’re right, a person is more likely to be harmed by a person he knows than someone at random. Which raises the question, if that is the case, what reason is their for concealed carry in public? The individual assaults occur either in domestic situations or in closed environments like homes or businesses. Those are statistics that you agree with. Given that, your decision to carry a concealed weapon in public infers your interest in self defense of your person and the public no differently than if you had guests in your home or other people in a retail business. That expectation is lowered substantially if you just run to your truck and get a shot gun for the same purpose that you’ve shown no training with or state permitting for. The supreme court has affirmed the to ownership of arms in the home for the purposes of self defense and protection of property with a reduced standard of judicial review. The same can not be said for street dances on main street et al. For that reason, and a lot of other ones not yet mentioned. I will continue to maintain that gun owners without training, without through knowledge of the force continuum and demonstration of rational decision making, shouldn’t be allowed to carry personal defense weapons in public places. I will also maintain that private parties who maintain those privileges maintain significant liability insurance to stand in the stead of sovereign immunity, for the general protection and remedy for the public that exposed to the increased risk.

    I think you need to go through the 9 weeks of Law Enforcement Standards and Training required of all SD Law Enforcement officers and follow it up with standardized, routine and diverse training and testing at the agency level couple to firearms qualification, before you make brash comments about law enforcement ineptitude. Their pay is irrelevant to the quality of the job they do. They are paid the wage they are because political and bureaucratic leaders ultimately decide, based on available tax money, what the public can afford to pay them. And I note that the entry level salary for a police officer today is at least $5000.00 more per year than it was 8 years ago when I retired. You might also take a look at the predetermined salary classifications of employees in public venues. The states are standardized and the only way to change them is through repetitive job worth studies. Police officers are no different than firemen…… They believe they are worth more than they are being paid and in most cases, that’s correct but the public doesn’t agree. That has no bearing on the quality of the job that police do or their responsiveness to public need. There is no higher calling than service to one’s fellow man. Its even biblical. If you’re not willing to recognize or exercise that due care principle, just leave your gun at home, take evasive action and let the police do the job they are trained to do.


  64. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 11:56

    What if? What if? What if? We could play this game all day long. What if I don’t have any means to defend myself. Guess what, I’m still dead. You can’t use deadly force unless you feel your life is threatened, so your question is irrelevant. If you are trying to suggest that drawing escalates the situation to a deadly one, then it could be argued that drawing was not an option. If I am sitting in a bank with multiple assailants and they have us all in a room telling us nothing will happen as long as we hold tight until they leave…..I’m not going to do a dang thing. I’m only going to take the risk if I feel my life is in imminent danger.

  65. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 12:01

    ” It occurs to me that a case could be made for negligence in circumstances where a permitted concealed carry person could be sued for failing to use his firearm and training to prevent harm to others, particularly if it can be shown that there was ample and safe opportunity to do so and there was a deliberate decision not to do so.”

    I can tell you that is completely bogus. A cop isn’t held to that standard so why would a civilian who just happens to be armed. Supreme Court made it clear that the cops failure to protect is not on them.

    John, the chance is always there and my ability to protect myself has no bearing on what that chance may or may not be. You sound like an angry leo who just doesn’t want people to protect themselves. I’m glad you aren’t the deciding factor. Everyone has a right to protect themselves and should not be questioned why. I don’t need to give you any more reason than…”I can”.

  66. mike from iowa 2018-01-30 12:16

    So Daniel decides he is not going to draw a gun to protect anyone other than himself.

    A child in a stroller is being savaged by a vicious pitbull. I, without a gun would not hesitate to tangle with a pitbull because I have a conscience.

    Same with an active shooter. I don’t need a weapon to do what is right according to my code.

  67. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 12:21

    That is your choice Mike. I already do more for my fellow man than you ever will. I am just making it clear that I will not help those that I feel would not want me to help. Outside of that, I’ll make the judgement call. I would help a child in need because I don’t feel they should be punished by the stupidity of their parents. IF that dog is attacking you, I’ll stand from a distance and yell at it. I wouldn’t want to escalate the situation to where I am being attacked and have to draw my weapon.

  68. Jason 2018-01-30 12:25

    John W.

    Please link us to where the “new” metal detectors can detect the nail that the article said was undetectable.

    Do you think a nonmetallic firing pin could be produced today?

    I forgot to ask you earlier to prove the statement below so I am asking now for you to prove that risk of harm has increased because of conceal carry.

    “More firearms in public places just increases the risks of harm to a mostly unarmed population that doesn’t want to be armed. “

  69. Jason 2018-01-30 12:28


    Everyday you have more people protecting themselves in self-defense with a gun than you have then shooting themselves.

    As for Martin, he would be alive today if he wouldn’t have attacked Zimmerman.

  70. John W. 2018-01-30 12:38

    A police officer can and is held to that standard by policy and sworn oath and contract with the public. The tenet of due care applies. But that is not the bone of contention. The police are sheltered from civil liability by Sovereign immunity to a significant degree. You and your compatriots in concealed arms (of which I am one) are not. Thusly my desire to see legislation enacted that requires people carrying firearms in populated public places to have significant liability insurance. I’m not an angry LEO that doesn’t want people protecting themselves. I am a retired LEO that recognizes the increased risks of private citizens with questionable qualification, abilities and demeanors, proposing to use deadly force, with reckless and ignorant disregard for their public responsibility and safety. If you believe that you should not be questioned why you allegedly protected your self you prove willingness to dodge that civic stewardship. And in any public shooting scenario in which you are a witness, you can expect to provide a statement as well as receive a subpoena to testify; and in that questioning, the court is going to ask you some questions about why you did or did not use a firearm. Shoot someone in any circumstance and there will be a criminal investigation and the state’s attorney general will determine, after all the facts are gathered, whether the shooting was in self defense and therefore justified. And even in those circumstances, a ruling in that regard doesn’t allow you to avoid civil liability for wrongful death, damage to property, negligence or any number of other allegations. Those are the things I’m concerned about. If I”m in a crowd of people, some of whom are carrying guns, I want some civil remedies available as well as assurances that those people can use those firearms responsibly and with due care. Its and issue of dangerous instrumentalities. Cars have long been classified as dangerous instrumentalities that are operated in public places. In order to drive them, we’re required to have insurance and licenses. A personal defense weapon, which now includes paramilitary weapons in my estimation, constitutes a dangerous instrumentality in public that deserves similar oversight. If you hold yourself out as someone intending to protect and serve family and friends, then there is a responsibility to the totality of the public.

    And Jason; I won’t dignify your distractions with a response. You want reliable answers, start looking for them in reliable places.

  71. Jason 2018-01-30 12:44

    John W.

    You can’t refute the article or back up your statement can you?

  72. Jason 2018-01-30 12:45

    Here’s a fun fact.

    You have more of a chance to be injured in a vehicle accident than you do to be shot by a conceal carry gun.

  73. Ryan 2018-01-30 16:24

    Wow, what a rabbit hole you critters dug up.

    Ordinary people who think they will get to save the day with their gun someday are delusional. You would be better off spending your time and money on things like CPR classes and weight training so you can save a family member from a medical condition or lift a heavy object off a victim if something falls on them. When people say things like, “You want to risk your life, fine, but I’m gonna carry my heat and take a stand and fight the bad guys…blah blah blah…” you sound to most of the rest of us something like this…”Fine, when the aliens land and you aren’t wearing your tin foil helmet, don’t come knocking on my bunker door for help.” You are probably the same kinds of guys who wear those stupid paracord bracelets because some day you’ll need 6 feet of mediocre rope to save the day, too.

    There are exceptions, but most ordinary people who carry guns just like carrying guns. Good for you. You’ll never use it for anything except killing unarmed animals and feeling like a big man at the shooting range, but yes, the founders of this country drafted the 2nd amendment poorly so now you get to pretend that owning a gun is the most important right Americans have. I own guns, and I enjoy shooting guns, but they are about 8,000% less important and useful in real life than some of you people pretend they are. I also own some throwing knives and they are fun to throw, but it is as useful of a hobby as birdwatching when it comes to self-defense and the defense of others.

    And oh yeah, all those metal detectors in courthouses, stores, police stations, and everywhere else are garbage now because Jason watched John Malkovich kill a guy by the lake with his plaster pea shooter in that classic Clint Eastwood movie “In the Line of Fire.” Might as well just scrap all preventative measures against violent criminals and just issue everyone a plaster gun when they turn 10 so we can all feel safer.

  74. Daniel Buresh 2018-01-30 16:56

    We know it is rare. In fact, I would be surprised if I ever have to use it. To me, that isn’t a deterrent at all. I’m more along the lines of be prepared. Heavy Objects and CPR? Well I guess I know CPR and it is pretty worthless without a jump start. As a fire dept, we can’t move heavy objects so we have to wait for the town over to do our heavy lifting. Being trained in extraction means that if I do inject myself as a civilian, I have a much greater liability to worry about. It’s the same reason why my brother the doctor won’t stop for car wrecks. He can be held liable for not knowing something about the patient while attempting to help. Luckily, SD has good Samaritan laws that will help in those situations. And yes, I do wear a paracord bracelet about 3 weeks out of the year, but I trek 20 miles into some of the most unforgiving territory in the lower 48 and I prefer to have something that may save my life in case i get caught in a storm or break my leg. Paracord works great to hold up a tarp for a temporary shelter.

    If you don’t want to exercise your rights, that is fine. Just don’t expect to hold us to your standards. I wonder if you criticize all the people who carry pocket knives or leathermans? There was a time in our society where just about every male from age 8 and up carried a pocket knife. I suppose you think that was dumb as well?

  75. Ryan 2018-01-30 18:26

    Pocket knives and guns are so different that the anology is too thin. People use them often and for very hum-drum reasons. My comment was directed at the unlikely scenario of using a gun for anything other than hunting or target practice. I’m just saying it is so unlikely that a good samaritan with a gun will save the day that using that as a primary reason for carrying a gun daily is less effective than spending time or effort on other things that are much more probable to matter. You are right, you’re allowed to carry it, but you are wrong to think carrying it will ever matter for the reasons you’re suggesting.

  76. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-01-30 20:08

    I’ve drawn my Swiss Army knife countless times, only once in fear for my life (beware my tweezer and two-inch blade!). I’ve never aimed it at a human. I’ve never allowed it to accidentally harm a human. I don’t even think I’ve harmed myself (or at least the slip of the blade made such an inconsequential cut that I don’t remember it the way I’m sure I would remember a similar mishap with a firearm).

  77. mike from iowa 2018-02-05 09:48

    DB- isn’t it a serious crime to leave the scene of a personal injury accident, especially by medical professionals?

    Trayvon Martin was well within his rights to confront a thug stalking him. The z-man was not a real Neighborhood Watchman and they are specifically taught not to pursue and not to carry weapons.

    Z-man was also told to stand down. The cops were on their way and they didn’t need him to chase anyone.

    Z-man’s past shows a POS with an intense hatred towards black kids with hoodies. I suspect he found one alone he could kill and did so. I also noticed the very first transcript where Z-Man claims all these thugs get away and this one won’t get away, is no where to be found, as far as I have looked.

  78. Ryan 2018-02-23 10:01

    I don’t know how I missed that article mike posted last week, but I love it. Heck yeah, people who are pro-gun-control should start a crowdsourcing campaign to buy guns for every minority who wants one. Laws would be passed so fast your head would spin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.