Press "Enter" to skip to content

HB 1041 + SB 38: Dennert Would Repeal Concealed Carry Permit Requirement

Rep. Drew Dennert
Who needs a gun when he’s got a winning smile like that?

In the non-priority, non-issue department, my Representative Drew Dennert (R-3/Aberdeen) prime-sponsors House Bill 1041, which would let everyone walk around with concealed pistols without a permit. He’s co-sponsoring the similar Senate Bill 38 with the usual yahoos (Russell, Monroe, Nelson…).

HB 1041 retains the process for individuals to apply for sheriffs and the Secretary of State to issue permits, I assume so that South Dakotans can still go to other states packing their secret heat. HB 1041 also retains the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons in bars or liquor stores. It also does not touch the prohibition on carrying bang-bangs into courthouses or schools.

HB 1041 is, of course, unnecessary and unwise. We already have the right to carry guns without a permit, as long as we display them openly and thus alert our neighbors to the danger we pose to their safety. Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is the ammosexual’s version of wearing the opposite gender’s underclothes to work: it gives the wearer a special feeling, but it indulges a mostly distracting and useless impulse.

More guns are linked to more crimes. Sneaking a loaded weapon into public spaces is a privilege we should regulate through our current (and arguably already too loose) permitting process.


  1. Jason 2019-01-14 07:25

    I am going to guess that not one SD concealed permit holder has went on a killing spree.

    Criminals already conceal carry without a permit.

  2. Thought police 2019-01-14 07:58


    I am going to guess that as usual, you just trolling here, I can tell because you start your assertions with disclaimers that you are actually clueless, but then blowhard as though you have some sort of factual basis from which you are operating. Dont come at me with some “prove me wrong” BS either. You made the stupid claim, you prove it.

    Also, given your logic, since criminals already use and sell all sorts of lethal narcotics despite laws on the books against them, should we just abolish those too? Will be looking for your signature on the marijuana measures!!

  3. Jason 2019-01-14 08:09

    Guns are covered in the Constitution, drugs are not.

  4. DR 2019-01-14 08:17

    This pro gun conservative in me thinks…man there is a lot of other priorities that we need to fix…and we are introducing legislation like this?
    I am ok with a permitting process…and actually…GASP…would prefer a federal permit…one permit covers the good ole U.S of A. So I can take my Glock 9 across state lines and not have to worry about anything…

  5. TAG 2019-01-14 08:23

    Why does everyone (on both sides of the debate) immediately go to mass shootings as the primary reason for gun legislation? Although mass shootings are covered more sensationally in the news, and scare people, they represent a small fraction of the many children killed or injured by firearms each year in America. Many more die from accidental shootings and suicide than mass shootings.

    Regardless of what you think of concealed-carry, child access-prevention laws would actually save more lives. You know, just in-case anyone cares about such things.

  6. jerry 2019-01-14 09:06

    Drugs are covered under the Constitution at the Preamble. Read that piece of paper sometime troll.

  7. Porter Lansing 2019-01-14 09:08

    Monday Morning Gun-Hugger Humor ~ Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is the ammosexual’s version of wearing the opposite gender’s underclothes to work: it gives the wearer a special feeling, but it indulges a mostly distracting and useless impulse. 😁

  8. jerry 2019-01-14 09:11

    Good one Porter. When these phonies have nothing to offer for solutions to South Dakotan’s issues, like Nursing home closures, as an example, they go to guns and abortions. Makes them feel naughty like when they cross dress.

  9. jerry 2019-01-14 09:13

    A censure of trump resolution by Democrats would be the answer to the frivolous guns and gals nonsense we hear from team trump/red, like in Russia.

  10. jerry 2019-01-14 09:17

    Concealed guns present problems in air travel.

    “CHIBA – An American woman who was found to be in possession of a pistol and bullets on a flight from Atlanta to Narita airport near Tokyo last week was denied entry to Japan, airport sources said Friday.

    The woman, believed to be in her 30s, told Delta Air Lines crew during the flight that she had mistakenly brought the handgun and ammunition with her onto the plane, despite passing through security inspection at the southern U.S. airport, the sources said.”

    Lovely. Come on losers, show us you can do better or go home.

  11. David Newquist 2019-01-14 09:53

    I wish these bills would be revised to cover all toys. Toddlers are not supposed to bring their personal toys into pre-school because they cause disruptive issues. I get chided from the teachers at pre-school when I take my 4-year-old grandson there because he keeps concealing toys in his backpack. After all, toys are the weapons with which children arm against boredom and the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, St. Paul said he didn’t put away his childish things until he was a man, so if toting toys in secretive places was okay for him as a kid, why not all kids? Only problem is what that implies about what grown men should do with their toys.

  12. Rorschach 2019-01-14 11:57

    All it takes to get a concealed carry permit in SD is a $10 bill and 10 minutes to fill out a form. If you don’t have a permit you can still carry mostly concealed as long as a very small portion of the gun remains visible. We have the slackest concealed carry law in the country. People who want to carry out of state will still need a permit to do so if this passes, so the impact of this passing will probably be minimal.

  13. o 2019-01-14 12:22

    This is a national race to the bottom. Step one – make at least one state in the US a carry-em-if-you-got-em zone; step two — have federal legislation to force states to recognize ANY state’s (ie the lowest regulated state) in EVERY state. We are being the stalking horse to force other states to allow the carrying of concealed weapons by anyone anytime.

    What I don’t understand is why do law-abiding gun owners object to this registration/permit? Why take away a tool for law enforcement to prosecute the bad guys?

  14. Rorschach 2019-01-14 12:31

    Do you expect the US House to pass a law requiring states to allow permitless South Dakotans to concealed carry everywhere,O?

  15. Jason 2019-01-14 12:33

    o wrote:

    Why take away a tool for law enforcement to prosecute the bad guys?

    Law enforcement can prosecute them for the crime they committed.

    Carrying a gun is not a crime and shouldn’t be a crime to carry it concealed.

  16. o 2019-01-14 13:16

    Rorschach, yes. Much like the way each state must recognize marriages from other states, there is a powerful movement to do likewise with open and concealed carry laws. Maybe our one hope is that in the current political climate, with the NRA is hiding under a rock, politicians have a chance to favor policies of common sense and public safety over policies to singularly promote the sales of weaponry.

  17. Rorschach 2019-01-14 13:51

    So, O. You expect Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on forcing all states to recognize the least restrictive concealed carry law in the country, and you expect that bill to pass the House?

    I think you are either clueless or fear mongering. Try to keep your comments within the realm of the possible, or you will lose credibility.

  18. o 2019-01-14 14:36

    Rorschach, less so now that the Democrats have the majority in the House and the NRA is lying low. I never rule out any element of the conservative playbook. For now, I think I will take your lead and take some solace that with Democrats back in charge of some of the legislative branch, crazy will be more kept in check. Do you not think this was part of the far-right movement on second amendment absolutism?

    One mans fear mongering is another man’s paranoia . . ? OK, you talked me down.

  19. Debbo 2019-01-14 14:50

    The gun thing is indeed all about wingnuts’ fear mongering. My Missouri cousin believes lots of guns are a good thing. Guns unknown to the government are an even better thing because when they have to fight off the government they’ll have an advantage.

    Yes, she’s a reasonably intelligent person who’s been lost to Imbecilic Orangutan, Chinless Wonder McTurtle, Faux Noise, Britebutt, Alex Jones and the rest of the loonies.

  20. leslie 2019-01-14 17:35

    Great article Cory. Where else can I get the history behind ammosexual?another science denial movement by the right. Thune Maria Butina the NRA our militia favoring cowgirl governor Disanto Nelson out of stater Jensen. Dennert must have a weak mind.

  21. El Rayo X 2019-01-14 19:01

    It sounds like a great bill. When will we hear a ringing endorsement from all the law enforcement groups in South Dakota? The best way to defend against a bad guy with a gun is a good white guy with a gun.

  22. owen k reitzel 2019-01-14 19:22

    another waste of time bill. Time better spent on more important issues.

    Jason. Where in the constitution covers conceal carry?

  23. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-14 19:35

    Note what DR said. He likes guns, but even he recognizes what Ror says about the ease of obtaining a permit to take one’s right to carry a gun a step further to enjoy the privilege of hiding it on one’s person in public. It’s just not a priority compared to other bigger aims that DR and I could enunciate. But Republican legislators have to keep competing to boost their NRA ratings, with no appreciable benefit to the public.

    I have a right to know if the people around me are posing a threat to my security by carrying a gun. If you’re going to ask me to sacrifice that right, you should have to submit to at least South Dakota’s minimal permit process. And why wait for a crime to be committed? Why not let law enforcement have this one simple tool to screen some bad dudes? (And don’t say “Second Amendment,” because the Second Amendment does not include the right to conceal arms, said Justice Scalia.)

  24. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-14 19:37

    TAG, on this bill, I’m not worried about mass shootings; I’m worried about ass-shootings: i.e., some doofus butt-dialing his bang-bang in The Flame and firing a round through some nice waitress.

  25. Porter Lansing 2019-01-14 19:43

    ” I’m not worried about mass shootings; I’m worried about ass-shootings: i.e., some doofus butt-dialing his bang-bang in The Flame and firing a round through some nice waitress.”
    Daybreak to Sunset, the guy’s just plain funny.

  26. owen reitzel 2019-01-14 19:57

    match this bill with the bill letting people wear campaign materials at polling and you have problems.

    Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

  27. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-14 20:08

    Thanks, Porter. A guy’s got to cope with living in a fascist regime somehow. Think of it as a play on Roberto Benigni’s character in Life Is Beautiful—La Vita è Bella.

  28. grudznick 2019-01-14 20:24

    Mr. H, is The Flame still operating as an establishment and frequented by the Legislatures? That is the most exciting news I have read in a while. I bet Mr. Nelson sorts a few fellows out in the back room, just like the old days.

  29. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-14 20:54

    Not long ago an off duty FBI agent was break dancing or some damn thing at a Denver nightclub when his gun fell out of his holster and fired a round. The court slapped him on the wrist and told him not to do that anymore. I don’t recall whether anyone was hurt or not.

  30. John 2019-01-14 21:28

    Sure, pass a law allowing the protesters of the Dakota Access or Keystone XL pipelines carry concealed. Brilliant. What could go wrong?! 700,000 at the Sturgis Rally – what could go wrong?! In court, at divorce, custody, or contested wills?! What could go wrong?!

    Even frontier town sheriffs often required folks to turn in their guns while in town. Wyoming has a history of it because they knew that stupid is stupid does.

    The ammosexuals are deranged. Grow up and move on.

  31. Jason 2019-01-15 07:22


    Anybody can carry a gun in SD without a permit.

    Roger C,

    The FBI gun did not go off from falling out of the holster. Go watch the video.


    The gun went off when the FBI guy pressed the trigger.


    Not one person in SD has been apprehended in SD for carrying a concealed gun without a permit that was going to commit mass murder.

  32. Jason 2019-01-15 07:25


    You are much more likely to die in a car accident than to get shot by a person in SD.

    Now if you lived in South Chicago it would be different.

    Why don’t you live there and tell us that you don’t need a gun for protection?

  33. o 2019-01-15 15:18

    So in South Chicago, people do not shoot other people if those other people have guns? That’s silly.

  34. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-16 05:40

    Jason, my chances of getting shot by a person in SD increase if the number of people carrying guns in public increases.

    O is right: my chances of being shot by a deranged lunatic do not vary based on whether or not I’m hiding a gun in my pants or my usual equipment.

  35. Jason 2019-01-16 07:27

    No it doesn’t Cory.

  36. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-16 11:16


    Why are you still in South Dakota? Jason told you to move to south Chicago.

  37. Jason 2019-01-16 12:48

    I don’t know why he wouldn’t live their Roger. Chicago has very strict gun laws for law abiding citizens to conceal carry.

  38. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-16 12:53

    Cory probably doesn’t live “their” since South Dakota is his home.

  39. Porter Lansing 2019-01-16 13:21

    Speaking of English. How’s that parochial school lurnin’ working out for ‘ya, Jace? (Good one, Mr. Cornelius)

  40. mike from iowa 2019-01-16 14:53

    Carrying a gun is not a crime and shouldn’t be a crime to carry it concealed.

    What Jason is attempting to say is there are and casn be no illegal guns. Just illegal immigrants.

  41. o 2019-01-16 15:06

    The more the pro-gun enthusiasts encourage people to bring guns to every situation, the more guns will be used to address every situation. I don’t want more problems to be solved with guns.

  42. Jason 2019-01-16 18:04

    When you got nothing become the grammar police.

    I have corrected Cory’s a few times, but I have sent him a private message.

    o’s statement is opinion and not fact.


    Maybe Cory should move there for a year or two and see what it is like.

    It’s what he is advocating for. Good guys with no guns and just the bad guys having them.

  43. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-16 18:43

    One of the freedoms we have in this country is that we are free to live wherever we choose, that includes Cory and you.
    You may think you have a right to demand or suggest that people live elsewhere, but you don’t.
    Telling people to relocate is the cheapest form of an argument.

  44. Jason 2019-01-16 19:14


    You have reading comprehension problems.

    I did not demand Cory to move anywhere.

    I asked him a question.

    Are you going to respond to the facts I stated about South Chicago or not?

  45. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-16 19:51

    Not! I’m not interested in what happens in south Chicago.

    My reading comprehension skills are quite sharp, it is your poorly phrased questions and comments are your problems.

  46. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-17 12:39

    Chicago is another effort by Jason to talk about something other than the main point that he can’t beat, which is that we don’t need HB 1041 for public safety.

    As a True Conservative On Twitter, Blogs, and Elsewhere (#TCOT! #TCOTBE!), I maintain that we should only pass laws when we cannot achieve desired results without them. Our desired results here are public safety and observance of the Constitution. If more people carrying guns make public spaces more dangerous, we definitely don’t want to encourage more people to carry guns in public places with this bill. If more people carrying guns make public spaces safer, those more people are free to carry those safety-fying guns openly, under existing statute, with no need for Legislative action. Many people who can’t get a concealed pistol permit (what, short $10 this week?) can carry a gun openly without problem. Either way, public safety needs are met without HB 1041.

    As for the Constitution, current law already respects the Second Amendment by permitting open carry. Concealed carry is not a Constitutional right. Thus, securing our Constitutional rights does not require passage of HB 1041.

    Plus, passing HB 1041 decreases public safety by removing one reasonable check by law enforcement on applications for a privilege that may help us prevent some violent outcomes.

    Conservatives, vote no quickly on HB 1041, and bring me a bill we need.

  47. Jason 2019-01-17 12:43


    Where does the Constitution mention open carry?

  48. Jason 2019-01-17 12:46

    Who said it was about public safety?

    It’s about personal safety and your Second Amendment right .

  49. Kal Lis 2019-01-17 13:20

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The phrase “the security of a free State” implies public safety far more than it does personal safety.

    Taken as a whole, the amendment also links “shall not be infringed” to a “well regulated Militia” which once again emphasizes the public over the individual.

    Further, Max Weber correctly asserted that the state is the “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The argument that individuals need to resort to deadly force implies that the government is illegitimate.

    If that is indeed case, Jason seems to be arguing that the Constitution, the founding document of the United States, is illegitimate

  50. bearcreekbat 2019-01-17 15:06

    As usual Jason attempts to mislead us with his “opinion” about the extent of the 2nd Amendment by stating it as a “fact” rather than an opinion. No where does he acknowledge that his opinion is not the law of the land. Instead, as usual, Jason’s assertion is the equivilant of the Blues Brothers “wish sandwich” in which you have two dry slices of bread and “wish” there was some meat between them. As with the wish sandwich, there is simply no meat to Jason’s claims about the extent of the restrictions required by the 2nd Amendment.

    In the Heller case a majority of the SCOTUS provided an explanation of the current scope of the 2nd Amendment.

    Rather than rely on Jason’s one liners the reader can simply look at the Court’s majority opinion to determine the current scope of the 2nd Amendment. A review of that opinion clarifies that whether the 2nd Amendment prohibits government restrictions on both open carry and concealed carry remains an open issue today. Heller ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government from prohibiting possession of a firearm in the home for self defense purposes. The Court did not issue a ruling on open or concealed carry outside the home.

    Indeed, without actually ruling on such questions, language in the majority analysis suggests that open carry is likely protected by the 2nd Amendment, except in sensitive public areas. It also suggests that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit the government from restricting or prohibiting concealed carry outside the home.

    . . . From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . . For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues . . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .

    Heller at 54 (italics added).

    . . . In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment).

    Heller at 57

    The Court did not face any question about whether restrictions outside the home involving either open or concealed carry were permitted, yet the above language offers a pretty good clue about how the Court would rule if faced directly with such questions.

    McDonald v. Chicago was decided after Heller in another case addressing state restrictions on the possession of gun in the home for self defense. There the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated into the 14th Amendment and thereby limited the power of the states in the same way as it limited the power of the federal government to restrict or prohibit the possession of a gun in the home for self defense.

    As in Heller the McDonaldCourt repeated the idea that the 2nd Amendment was not absolute and repeated the suggestion that government has the power to regulate and restrict open or closed carry outside the home.

    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

    McDonald v. Chicago, slip op at 39-40.

    Hence, despite claims to the contrary, there is simply no current established right to either open or concealed carry. The SCOTUS has not yet ruled on either issue. Hence state and local governments are free to restrict or prohibit such conduct as they see fit.

  51. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-17 18:04

    I already linked to Scalia’s explanation of open carry as a right in the Second Amendment vs. concealed carry as an uncovered privilege. I don’t need to offer any further response until I hear a refutation of Scalia’s analysis. Kallis and BCB offer further sensible explanation. Don’t be dense, Jason. Read, analyze, respond… or just admit you’ve got nothing.

  52. Jason 2019-01-18 12:22

    BCB and Cory,

    The SD Legislature can pass a law requiring every SD resident age 21 and older to possess and conceal carry a handgun or face a penalty.

  53. bearcreekbat 2019-01-18 12:57

    Jason’s latest distraction deserves a distracting response: Jason, why only those over age 21? What provision in our state or federal constitutions would limit the state’s power to impose such a law on kindergarten students or other toddlers for example?

    Remember, it has been documented that toddlers shoot and kill and more Americans with guns than adult terrorists.

    Surely this is an acceptable cost to Jason of protecting the toddler’s 2nd Amendment right to open or concealed carry?

  54. Jason 2019-01-18 13:01

    The Legislature can choose any age they want BCB.

    Why are facts distracting to you?

  55. Debbo 2019-01-18 13:54

    Jason, why is staying on topic difficult for you?

  56. bearcreekbat 2019-01-18 15:10

    Jason, I’m not sure I understand your question, as it is based on a false premise that “facts” distract me. As for your comment, it was obviously an attempt to distract the reader because it has no relationship to: Cory’s topic; the 2nd Amendment; nor, any of the prior discussions in the post. Instead, it is an entirely unrelated pointless comment that has no other apparent purpose than to distract from your inability to either admit your earlier comments were wrong or untrue, or provide a meaningful defense to those comments. And it is consistent with your historical modus operandi on Cory’s blog – (1) you make a false statement; (2) someone demonstrates your statement is false; (3) you then respond by posting an unrelated comment in an effort to distract.

  57. mike from iowa 2019-01-18 15:44

    The FBI gun did not go off from falling out of the holster. Go watch the video.

    I did watch and the gun went off because it fell out of the holster and was laying on the floor when the tool went to pick it up, as soon as he touched it it went off and shot a bystander in the leg. The guy did a back flip for crying out loud and then put his gun away and left the scene of the shooting. And yes he got his gun back.

  58. John 2019-01-20 07:53

    The ammosexuals met their match: 155-years of South Dakota history and common sense.

    Other territories and states had similar laws from the earliest of their days. Earlier yet, Tory communities banned guns from their minority patriots. Patriot communities banned guns from their minority Tories. Gun control is as American as apple pie and the Second Amendment. Move on.

  59. bearcreekbat 2019-01-20 13:23

    John, my thoughts too. When I saw Tupper’s story I wondered if the pro-1041 concealed carry crowd would now argue that the folks 150 years ago and counting, including the founders of the Dakotas and all the past leaders of the State, simply were too stupid and uneducated to understand or respect the 2nd Amendment.

    Then I wondered what discoveries have been made by modern day concealed carry crowd that might lead them to such as conclusion, but was totally missed by literally everyone before them, including every single current and past pro-2nd Amendment Justice on the SCOTUS, especially those recently writing opinions in Heller and McDonald. Did our pro-1041 crowd discover some well kept secret note from James Madison or some other founder?

    How did our modern day warriers come to reject the long standing historical view that the “barbarous” practice of concealed carry

    “is not suited to an enlightened people, and promotes neither good order in the community nor courage in the individual?”

    Then I thought, well maybe denying permitless concealed carry actually harmed some people who wanted to secretly carry a gun in the past, hence such idea of the founders should now be reconsidered. I researched and studied the issue but could not find a single bit of evidence that any Dakotan, or anyone else for that matter, who had complied with the concealed carry restrictions was ever harmed in any way. None, nada, zilch. So that could not be the reason.

    So what is the real reason again for seeking to change this longstanding policy regulating our behavior around others, including law enforcement officers, as we meander in public places on our roads, sidewalks, stores, malls, ourside our schools and churches, social events in local town squares, music festivals and dances, or any other place we might encounter unarmed and unsuspecting friends, neighbors, relatives, children, or perhaps some irritating or annoying person who angers us with disagreeable driving habits, etc. etc?

    Dennert? Nelson? DiSanto? Anyone?

  60. Debbo 2019-01-20 19:32

    John and BCB, thanks for your first rate research and thinking. I doubt the ammosexual/1041 crowd will respond in kind.

  61. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-21 11:14

    Thanks for that article, John! Tupper’s article helps make clear that South Dakota has for its entire existence recognized that concealed carry is not an expression of the Second Amendment.

    As I noted at the top, concealed carry is really the ammosexual’s autoeroticism.

  62. Jason from SD 2019-01-23 12:27

    It’s time for SD to follow ND John.

    The Supreme Court just took a gun case that will most likely make the “home” issue irrelevant.

  63. bearcreekbat 2019-01-23 13:32

    At last I think I understand the need for this legislation. Some folks applying for permits have been found to be too dangerous for concealed carry. These folks need this legislation to overcome the objections of law enforcement to their secret carry of a gun.

    Even if you disagree with dangerous folks carrying concealed weapons, you kind of have to admire those Republicans supporting this legislation. Typically, people deemed by law enforcement to be dangerous to the public will not get much support from any quarter, conserative or liberal.

    And such support seems totally contrary to conservative wall supporters’ fear of the men, women and children seeking freedom, safety and economic opportunity in the U.S. Maybe there is hope that this latter fear will dissipate just as the fear of people deemed dangerous by law enforcement for a closed carry permit apparently has dissipated?

  64. Debbo 2019-01-23 13:38

    BCB, I admire your ability to follow the convoluted, twisted and distorted “thinking” of some on the Wrong.

  65. mike from iowa 2019-01-23 13:46

    The Supreme Court just took a gun case that will most likely make the “home” issue irrelevant.

    Made possible due to the criminal act of denying a sitting Potus his choice for the court after using Russia to steal the Presidential election and -place a total moron with Putish sympathies in charge of the kremlin access.

  66. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-23 14:16


    Indians that will be protesting at Keystone XL and they may or not be armed, it they will be legal.

  67. bearcreekbat 2019-01-23 14:16

    Debbo, you’re too kind.

  68. mike from iowa 2019-01-23 15:27

    Wingnuts have campaigned as aw and order alternatives to Dems for years and then ignore the Police who are vehemently opposed to assault weapons and open carry of weapons. Wingnuts make the Police job harder tom do to satiate the NRA and its Russian money men.

  69. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-23 21:23

    Whoops! Roger just pointed out a way to bring up some awkward conversations. Let’s see a few hundred Indians open-carry up to the Capitol steps with signs reading “see you at Keystone XL… but you won’t see my gun!”

  70. Porter Lansing 2019-01-23 21:31

    What does Islam say about concealed carry? Here’s a verse from the holy Qur’an …
    And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.

    And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms. Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allah has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

  71. Jason 2019-01-30 12:27

    So Cory and Roger think Indians are now going to shoot people because they don’t need a concealed carry permit.

    Insert the Billy Madison Quote here.

  72. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-30 13:53

    You can’t get more shallow then Jason.

  73. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-30 15:56

    Jason is playing word games again, trying to impute to us statements we didn’t make, hoping that inattentive Googlers will see his claim and assume it’s true. Slow libel should be beneath you, Jason. Argue the statements actually made, or go home. Word games do not interest me.

    I welcome Roger to correct me I’m wrong, but we’re both saying that the people seeking this privilege (and concealed carry is a privilege, not a right) seem be noisy, insecure white people. If a number of darker-skinned people showed up at the Capitol with openly and Constitutionally carried firearms, we suspect we’d hear a very different tune from the backers of hidden weapons on the topic of carrying guns anywhere, anytime.

    But hey, I’m not going to carry a gun to the Capitol and probably not anywhere else, because carrying a gun makes me and the people around me less safe. You really need to be selfish to stick a gun in your pants just to turn yourself on and pretend you’re an action hero, regardless of the danger to which you subject others.

  74. Jason 2019-01-30 19:36

    Where does the Constitution say concealed carry is a privilege?

    It says I have a right to bear arms.

    It says nothing about autos or horses.

    My argument that it is a right is a lot stronger than yours saying it is a privilege.

  75. jerry 2019-01-30 19:39

    In the Preamble

  76. Roger Cornelius 2019-01-30 20:07

    Beside the rally scenario there are any number of problem with this concealed carry law.
    Problem number one will profiling, most likely racial. There will be a lot of wasted time by law enforcement searching people that they may be suspect.

  77. Jason 2019-01-31 07:10

    Roger C wrote:

    There will be a lot of wasted time by law enforcement searching people that they may be suspect.

    Searching people for what Roger?

    All persons being arrested are searched.

  78. Debbo 2019-01-31 14:01

    Searching them for whatever they can think of, like they already do.

    “You fit the description, taillight is out, driving on the fog line,” etc.

  79. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-31 18:23

    Jason, now you’re not even trying. I gave you the link to Scalia, who was a Constitutional originalist. He said the Second Amendment doesn’t cover concealed weapons.

    But Jason and Kristi are committed to the lie that the Second Amendment is absolute and the sneaking around with a gun in your pants is “Constitutional Carry.” Woe unto South Dakota and its lack of commitment to honest legislation and responsible gun regulations.

  80. bearcreekbat 2019-01-31 18:31

    Today’s (1-31-19) RC Journal’s top story on page 1 reported that a poll found that 84% of South Dakotans and 85% of SD gun owners, both republicans and democrats, supported the concealed carry law. If this poll is even close to accurate, the rejection of such a strong majority opinion by legislators and the governor is absolutely astounding.

  81. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-31 19:19

    Of course, the bill matters to the 0.5% of NRA members who write those bang-up candidate report cards and the NRA checks….

Comments are closed.