SD Governor vetoes Constitutional carry bill

[swinokur]

not sure if this can be over riddenn.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-16/concealed-handgun-veto-south-dakota/53568632/1

 

[itsatrap]

I do not see a big deal, he is right, if he is telling the whole story. Its worth the small financial and time cost to assure only legit people have permits.

 

[swinokur]

I'm just the messenger

 

[Zaicran]

I agree with the Governor..I see nothing wrong with denying permits for criminals and those that have mental conditions that puts the public at risk.

 

[MDFF2008]

I agree with the Governor..I see nothing wrong with denying permits for criminals and those that have mental conditions that puts the public at risk.

It's sort of a weird situation.

Nothing will stop the criminals from carrying guns they obtain illegally.

But permits give people a sense of comfort.

 

[dwsjr]

Agree with the Governor, now will/can he move here so we can get rid of ours.

 

[OEH]

I duhno, prohibited people are already prohibited by existing law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it. People who don't care what the law says are going to do what they want anyway. I'd say go no permit carry and be sure to clearly advertise what the law is in regard to who may carry/own a firearm.

 

[Inigoes]

I duhno, prohibited people are already prohibited by existing law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it. People who don't care what the law says are going to do what they want anyway. I'd say go no permit carry and be sure to clearly advertise what the law is in regard to who may carry/own a firearm.

SD is already constitutional for open carry.

I find it odd even with a CCW, you can't even have a loaded fiream on a snowmobile

http://www.usacarry.com/south_dakota_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

 

[ffemtreed]

I don't agree with it.

Criminals and such can't possess a firearm. so if they can't possess a firearm what good is constitutional carry going to do for them?

As much flack as we hear about crazy people, its extremely rare for a crazy persons 1st act of violence to escalate right to gun violence. Sure there have been cases of it happening, but again no law in place would have stopped them anyway. If someone is crazy and wants to kill people they are going to find a way.

 

[teratos]

I do not see a big deal, he is right, if he is telling the whole story. Its worth the small financial and time cost to assure only legit people have permits.

So people who are criminals will be dissuaded how?

Actually, when you think about it, the whole thing is just wrong. How can you veto "Constitutional" carry? In the USA Constitution vetoes YOU.

 

[alucard0822]

Same arguments brought up in every constitutional carry state, and they are all pretty much debunked. Criminals who want to carry will carry, they are already prohibited, and I can guarantee most KNOW they are prohibited. For those that are unsure, but are law abiding enough to check, most any public reccord search or call to the PD will tell them the answer, people don't "forget" that they were convicted of a crime, or committed to a mental hospital by law. I find it hard to belive police can't find a criminal reccord with a driver's license number if they pull someone over in traffic, or if they are conducting an investigation and have reasonable suspicion to belive someone committed a crime, and therefore require identification. If there is no suspicion of a crime, and someone is just carrying, then it really doesn't matter if that person has a permit or not, legal or prohibited, there is no reason to stop them. They already allow unlicensed open carry, if there was a problem with that, it would already be recgnized, although there is no statistically significant problem with people who are not prohibited from carrying open or concealed, with or without a license. The process and cost for a permit might be easy, but it is still an infringement, and doesn't really affect criminals that are already carrying illegally, no real reason to infringe on the rights of thousands just so the police can tell a couple dozen they can't carry. Freedom can be scary to some, and some get wrapped up in the idea that gun laws stop crime, although every single statistic or study that isn't ridiculously biased proves otherwise in addition to a lack of constitutional authority for states or the federal government to regulate arms.

 

[Walter]

I do not see a big deal, he is right, if he is telling the whole story. Its worth the small financial and time cost to assure only legit people have permits.

Permits are useless. Alucard summed it up nicely in his post.

Hope they override his veto.

 

[Af_catfish]

The problem with permit issuance by the county sheriff is that each office is ran differently. In Ohio there are some counties that have good turnover time. But in other counties the sheriff is against CCW and makes it as much of a PITA as possible to get the license. I agree with Alucard, law abiding citizens will be law abiding. Here in MD you can't buy a handgun without an intensive background check from the State Police similar to what a shall issue check would be. And yet criminals are still able to procure and carry handguns.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

I don't agree with it.

Criminals and such can't possess a firearm. so if they can't possess a firearm what good is constitutional carry going to do for them?

As much flack as we hear about crazy people, its extremely rare for a crazy persons 1st act of violence to escalate right to gun violence. Sure there have been cases of it happening, but again no law in place would have stopped them anyway. If someone is crazy and wants to kill people they are going to find a way.

Constitutional carry is the only constitutional way to carry.
Gun permits are not going to stop a nutcase from carrying guns or killing people.

 

[alucard0822]

The problem with permit issuance by the county sheriff is that each office is ran differently. In Ohio there are some counties that have good turnover time. But in other counties the sheriff is against CCW and makes it as much of a PITA as possible to get the license. I agree with Alucard, law abiding citizens will be law abiding. Here in MD you can't buy a handgun without an intensive background check from the State Police similar to what a shall issue check would be. And yet criminals are still able to procure and carry handguns.

Same issue up here, my permit(York county) took a 1 page app that asked for less info than a 4473, $25 and 2 days. In Philly it can take months, they can and do revoke permits for very minor crimes like parking tickets or legal open carrying, and make the process as cumbersome as they can get away with. The state has pre-emtion for most gun laws, "shall-issue" being one of them, but it is up to the individual sherrifs and PDs on what the actual process will be. The permit process itself isn't that big of a deal, but of course it is usually not an optional process to carry like it is in most constitutional carry states. The issue is the laws and penalties that go along with it when you don't have a permit in a state tat requires one.

If a person is law abiding, and ends up carrying without a permit where required, they can be penalized, or in many cases jailed, some states like PA have asanine transport laws(similar to MD's) if a person does not have a permit. A real criminal that these laws are meant to target is probably in violation of a half dozen or more laws by the time you get down the list to "carrying without a permit", so it's not like there isn't something to charge them with. For that reason a lot of the more complex laws and practices end up hurting law abiding people more than criminals. Prosecutors love having dozens of charges that they can change or remove in deals to ensure some form of conviction, so many of the minor charges like unlicensed carry will probably be removed for a criminal, and they will try for "felon in posession of firearm", robbery, theft, and so on, but if it's the only charge imposed on someone they are likely law abiding, but it's all the prosecutor has, and they will try to convict based on it.

There are other issues with permits, reporters publishing personal information of those with permits, people who have to be fingerprinted and/or subject themselves to investigations merely to excercise a constitutional right. It can be a database of information that may contain medical reccords or in-depth personal information that may be obtainable through a FOIA request or public reccords to people who seek to harm you. There are mistakes made, someone who is the victim of identity theft, or someone that happens to share the name with a criminal might get turned down, and many "shall issue" states also place a higher burdon of qualification on obtaining a permit than they do on purchaing a firearm, turning down relatively law-abiding citizens for minor crimes in the past.

There is also a much lower burdon of proof to revoke a permit than to revoke firearm rights in general, some states revoke permits for legally open carrying, parking tickets, being uncooperative with an officer(without breaking a law) or very minor infractions. Without permits, the right to carry usually can only be revoked by a court of law through judicial proceedings with the same standards as firearm ownsership in that state. Permit requirements target everyone without a permit, law abiding or not, without a permit requirement only criminals are targeted, those already breaking the law by posessing a weapon, which is how it should be.

 

[Zaicran]

It's sort of a weird situation.

Nothing will stop the criminals from carrying guns they obtain illegally.

But permits give people a sense of comfort.

Giving permits out willy nilly dilutes our strengths as permit holders...

I don't want a whacko with a CCP shooting up a bunch of kids because the anti-gun nuts will have a field day with it...

In the long run, it jeopardizes and erodes our own rights as law abiding CCP holders...

I want LEO to see my permit and understand I was fully vetted.

 

[teratos]

Giving permits out willy nilly dilutes our strengths as permit holders...

I don't want a whacko with a CCP shooting up a bunch of kids because the anti-gun nuts will have a field day with it...

In the long run, it jeopardizes and erodes our own rights as law abiding CCP holders...

I want LEO to see my permit and understand I was fully vetted.

You shouldn't have to be vetted by anyone. Does issuing permits do ANYTHING to decrease crime or keep people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one? All regulations do in the long run is erode our rights as law abiding citizens.

 

[jonnyl]

If you're doing something illegal and have a firearm it won't matter that you have a permit. If you're not doing anything illegal, there should be no probable cause to ask you about your permit.

I don't feel that the mere presence of a firearm should be cause for a stop.

 

[Zaicran]

You shouldn't have to be vetted by anyone. Does issuing permits do ANYTHING to decrease crime or keep people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one? All regulations do in the long run is erode our rights as law abiding citizens.

It's easy for us to be over zealous in support of 2A...there is nothing wrong with denying permits for criminals and mentally ill and those predisposed to violence.

 

[knownalien]

Giving permits out willy nilly dilutes our strengths as permit holders...

a rather disturbing post. So I ask, ANYONE with a criminal record should not own a firearm nor be able to CC/OC it?