South Dakota will be considering a permitless, or "Constitutional" carry bill again this year. In 2012, a bill passed both the House and the Senate, but was vetoed by Gov Daugaard. In 2012, only Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming had Constitutional carry. In 2015, Constitutional carry passed the South Dakota House, but was killed by a Senate Committee. It passed the House 44 to 23. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, 27 to 8. Now, in 2016, Constitutional carry is expected to be introduced by Representative Lynne DiSanto. From siouxcityjournal.com:
PIERRE, S.D. — A Republican state lawmaker plans to sponsor a bill in the upcoming legislative session that would allow people who can legally carry a concealed handgun in South Dakota to do so without a permit.Constitutional carry has made great strides since 2012. There are 11 states that have permitless or "Consititutional" carry in 2016. The graphic below is one of the best at illustrating the incremental restoration of the right to bear arms in the United States. Green indicates a permitless or "Constitutional" carry state.
Right now, it's a misdemeanor under state law for someone to carry a concealed pistol or to have one concealed in a vehicle without a permit. Rep. Lynne DiSanto said Monday that her bill is about personal protection.
On Oct. 31, 2016, there were more than 95,000 active concealed pistol permits in South Dakota according to the secretary of state's office. The population of South Dakota in 2016 is 844,877. About 65.4% of the population is 18 or older. That would be 552,550. People with concealed carry permits are now 17% of the adult population. South Dakota's homicide rate in 2015 was 3.7 per 100,000, unusually high for South Dakota, but well below the national average of 4.9 per 100,000.
The difficulty in passing "Constitutional" carry in South Dakota is getting the bill past Governor Daugaard. Now that several other states have successfully passed permitless or "Constitutional" carry without ill effects, the bill may have a chance of becoming law.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
ANd all these states going Constitutional Carry, in the attempt to avoid the courts compelling it on all states all at once, are suddenly going to go to permit schemes with national reciprocity?
ReplyDeleteHardly. Not gonna happen. Heck, Vermont alone would stop it in its tracks. Vermonters are not NOW going to compelled to permit structures.
So lets just admit shall we? Permission slips are wrong now, they have always been wrong and the solution is to eliminate them entirely from sea to shining sea.
Then, lets work TOGETHER to make actual crimes committed have a fitting punishment. Let's start with Robbery, Rape and Murder in Malice. Seems pretty simple and a position we can all agree on, doesn't it?
All ten states with Constitutional carry have kept their permits, many specifically for reciprocity.
ReplyDeleteVermont will not need reciprocity in the state, because it has no requirement for a permit.
The most popular national reciprocity bill would cover Vermont, because it is worded to the effect that "if a person may legally carry where they are a resident", they can carry nationally.
Should be "All ten states that have gone to Constitutional carry in the last 15 years".
ReplyDeleteVermont has always had Constitutional carry.
Dean do you email articles like this to congress? there is a government email address that will send them to every office with one click.
ReplyDeleteIf you are an American citizen in Arizona , you are an American citizen in New York, there should not be a need for reciprocity. Your right to keep and bear arms travels with you.
ReplyDeleteOur Bill of right are rights that EXISTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT EXISTED. The reason the bill of rights exists is to force the Government to comply with the mandate to guarantee those rights. There is nothing in the constitution that supersedes the requirement for government to protect and defend those rights, as written. nothing allows the federal or state government to require a permit or even a test to exercise any of the guaranteed rights.
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago the USSC ruled that police have no duty to protect the public. the duty of the police is to investigate crimes and arrest the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Police do not prevent crime they investigate it. their presents may detour crime but they do not prevent crime. Unless police are actual eye witnesses to a crime all they can do is investigate crime. If a police officer sees you speeding he can write you a ticket. this is the foundation that has prevented the use of electronic devices for speeding. even radar guns have lost favor because of a case where a radar gun was used. In court the radar gun was calibrated by a technician. then it was taken to a window in the court room that moving vehicles could be seen from and tested. everyone was impressed with the accuracy. then it was pointed at the judges bench and the judges bench was doing 55 standing still. the case was thrown out.
Many years ago there was a police involved shooting. the officer claimed the suspect had ran down an alley and he thought he was armed. the officer ordered the suspect to stop. the suspect stopped and turned around and the office said he saw something shinny , thought it was a gun and fired killing the suspect. the officer called his supervisor and a shooting investigating team was dispatched to the scene. eleven plain clothes detectives showed up before the shooting team arrived. they all went over and checked the body. when the coroner arrived he turned over the body and sure enough, the suspect was armed. the coroner found eleven untraceable pistols under the body.