NSU student Steven Meyer came to crackerbarrel Saturday to learn what the substantive difference is between Senator Lance Russell’s Senate Bill 38 and Senator Brock Greenfield’s Senate Bill 47, both of which would allow South Dakotans to sneak around with guns in their pants without a permit. Meyer left, like the rest of us, without an answer, as Senator Greenfield spent six minutes not answering the question.
The only distinctions Senator Greenfield made were that legislators like his SB 47 better and that SB 47 more closely copies the vetoed 2017 measure. Greenfield then slips into the tired old tales of how putting on a jacket shouldn’t make a gun carrier a criminal and how “a lot of people” don’t realize their concealed-weapons permits have expired. Greenfield then added a vague story about some unknown woman in an unknown jurisdiction who was prosecuted for driving around oblivious to the gun her husband had hidden in her car.
To those points:
- For more impact, we should reword the jacket story: “Suppose I like walking in a Speedo with my gun on my hip. Why should I be made a criminal just because I put pants on?” I hope that example makes clear that the concealed weapons permit is not about what you’re wearing; it’s about whether you are carrying openly or hiding your pistol. If you’re carrying a gun, you have an obligation to the people around you to be aware of the position and visibility of that weapon. If you forget that putting on a jacket conceals your openly carried gun, you’re not paying responsible attention to your weapon.
- Carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege, just like driving. If you aren’t paying attention to the laws you’ve agreed to follow and the dates on which you are expected to renew those privileges, you aren’t responsibly exercising your privileges.
- The woman in Brock’s third tale was placed in legal and physical jeopardy by her husband. If your spouse has a gun, your spouse should tell you the whereabouts of that gun. And responsible gun owners never leave their guns unattended or unsecured. This story doesn’t justify ending the permit requirement; it justifies punishing the husband for irresponsible gun ownership.
I’m not sure why Brock thinks telling stories about irresponsible gun handling would make anyone want to loosen gun regulations.
By the way, Steven, the major policy difference I see between Russell’s bill and Greenfield’s bill is that Section 15 of Greenfield’s bill explicitly forbids kids from carrying concealed weapons… unless they’re with a parent or legal guardian… because, yeah, as long as Mom and Dad are around, nothing will go wrong with a six-year-old hiding a gun in his pants.
SB 47 comes before House State Affairs this morning at 7:45.
Reminder: concealed carry, permitless or not, satisfies fantasies but doesn’t improve safety:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
Did Brock mention the need to help people who have been deemed unfit or too dangerous to be issued a concealed carry permit? There must be a lot those folks since we now have two bills trying to resolve that problem. No one wants to see a dangerous person with a gun, hence they should be able to conceal carry so they don’t draw attention to themselves and scare people.
It is good to see SD legislators try to help of people deemed unfit and dangerous for a change. And the positive side effect is to hide any danger from the public.
What does South Dakota law enforcement think of the help the lege is giving them? My best guess is not much.
Cory wrote:
If you’re carrying a gun, you have an obligation to the people around you to be aware of the position and visibility of that weapon.
False.
I’ve never met a law enforcement officer yet that likes the idea of permitless concealed carry. And, having worked for the UJS for a few years, I’ve known quite a few.
BTW, Jason, what’s wrong with “If you’re carrying a gun, you have an obligation to the people around you to be aware of the position and visibility of that weapon”. Of course if I’m carrying a weapon I need to be aware of the position and visibility of my weapon at all times. I certainly don’t want people carrying weapons without a clue as to where they put it or whether it’s hanging out of their coat pocket or fallen on the bathroom floor.
This is just about pleasing their owners, Koch/ALEC/Mercers/NRA. It’s not for SD, certainly not for LE. It’s what the very corrupt SDGOP does, rather than trying to meet the state’s real needs, as the Presentation Sisters asked. It’s cruelty in action.
With the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally coming it will be interesting to see how it goes with 500,000 armed bikers.
Expecting a huge turnout this year, eh Mr. C? Half a million carrying concealed means a lot of scantily clad biker chicks with nowhere to hid their gats.
“hid their gats” what the hell does that even mean?
Roger … grudzie’s got the Irish Curse going on strong, this winter.
“Hide their gats.”
= “Conceal their weapons.”
Mr C, please forgive my mistyping of missing an “e” with my fat, injured left hand.
Apology accepted, grudz, there are times I am too impatient with mistakes.
I used the figure of 500,000 for the Sturgis Rally as an average since there never seems to be an accurate accounting.
Jason does not understand the serious obligations one assumes when one carries a deadly weapon. Don’t let Jason on my work site with power tools.
Really stupid legislation. Year after year. Minnehaha Sheriff was a master of conflating conceal carry, “constitutional” carry and 2nd Amendment forgery. Places us all in greater danger of hidden guns as we go about our daily lives. Citizen, resident, tourist. Our kids are not safe in a repub state that passes idealogic laws like these.
Thanks for that ABC News video. Terrifying.
I am so tired of the ammosexuals who think life is a video game. I’m really glad they are a smaller and smaller percentage of the public over time.
From the Minneapolis Strib editorial:
The Minnesota Medical Association recently organized a workshop on gun violence.
“The MMA has already taken a courageous stance on gun-violence prevention, one that not all members approved of. It issued a statement last March calling gun violence a “public health crisis” and then backed much-needed state reforms — such as criminal background checks on all purchases and transfers or exchanges of firearms.”
“Other recommendations included extending [Medicaid] for new mothers to help them with depression and other challenges to their well-being that can occur months after giving birth. According to one physician at the workshop, firearms (used in domestic violence and suicide) and drugs are a surprising source of maternal mortality in Minnesota.”
https://goo.gl/wK6f7b
grudznick gut-punch ~ In the first 15 days of Colorado’s red-flag law, five different cases have requests to remove guns from a range of people: an abusive boyfriend, a suicidal man, the father of a grandchild, a suspect who threatened a mass shooting and a police officer.
RELATED: Denver’s first red flag filing granted after man agrees to give up his guns for a year.