South Dakota – No Permit Needed to Carry Concealed

Good news for SD residents.

South Dakota has become the latest state to remove permit requirements for gun owners to carry and conceal their weapons.

The state’s new Republican governor, Kristi Noem, signed SB 47 into law Thursday. The legislation permits residents to legally carry a firearm concealed on their person so long as they are allowed to possess one.

The bill passed the state Senate by a 23-11 vote and the state House by a vote of 47-23, reports said. In a tweet, Noem said the new law reflects the vision of the Founding Fathers and protects Second Amendment gun rights.

“Our Founding Fathers believed so firmly in our right to bear arms that they enshrined it into the Constitution,” the governor tweeted. “This constitutional carry legislation will further protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding South Dakotans.”

Democrats and law enforcement officials opposed the new law, calling for it to be limited to South Dakota residents, according to the Hill.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group, called the legislation dangerous and said it would have devastating effects, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The National Rifle Association applauded the measure, calling it a “common sense measure that allows law-abiding South Dakotans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

South Dakota is the 14th state to remove the concealed carry permit requirement. Twenty-eight other states and the District of Columbia have a “shall-issue” system, which grants permits to those who pass background checks and other requirements.

One place in South Dakota where gun owners will not be able to carry their firearms is the Statehouse in Pierre. State senators voted 22-10 this week against a bill that would have let permit holders carry guns in the Statehouse and other state buildings.

Republican Sen. Stace Nelson, the bill’s sponsor, argued that Statehouse employees and lawmakers are at risk and that the Statehouse is not a secure facility.

Stop and take a look at how many people are out there that should not have a hand gun but do and carry them without the permit. Current laws in states requiring all the checks certainly haven’t stymied any of that activity. Maybe Stace Nelson should do a study of his contemporaries in that statehouse regarding who is entitled to carry under any law and how many of them would not pass muster.

After watching Minnesota do all this carry stuff and then seeing and hearing of all the killings done by felons with firearms [and a couple by law enforcement that are currently in the courts] its not hard for me to feel that the carry laws are just a money trap and basically don’t work. So kudos to SD.

I’m not necessarily against this…but if people are free to carry without the permit it should be everywhere, not “everywhere but places where lawmakers work.”

That vote wreaks of hypocracy. “More people will carry guns per the second amendment and it will help people protect themselves. However, you carrying a gun in my place of work is a risk. None allowed.”

Step in the right direction. Would be great for Minnesota to follow. Not real fond of the license fees here.

-J.

Good for SD. It goes to show that at lease some politicians ( Both Senate and House in SD anyway ) Have a clue of reason.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Step in the right direction. Would be great for Minnesota to follow. Not real fond of the license fees here.

-J.

x2. There shouldn’t be ongoing licensing fees for a Constitutional Right.

buckybadger wrote:

I’m not necessarily against this…but if people are free to carry without the permit it should be everywhere, not “everywhere but places where lawmakers work.”

That vote wreaks of hypocracy. “More people will carry guns per the second amendment and it will help people protect themselves. However, you carrying a gun in my place of work is a risk. None allowed.”

^^^ This

Jon Jordan wrote:

Republican Sen. Stace Nelson, the bill’s sponsor, argued that Statehouse employees and lawmakers are at risk and that the Statehouse is not a secure facility.

I don’t agree with some of Stace’s principles, but he has been very steady in his support of 2A, and getting carry allowed in the state house. He’s former NCIS, a hell of a good pistol shooter, and a gun guy in general. Now if we could just get him on our side for water access and drainage laws…

Constitutional Carry in SD was a no brainer. before this bill passed, it was already legal to open carry without a permit. Permits are still available for those who wish to obtain one for reciprocity purposes, or to use to inform law enforcement during a traffic stop if that is their prerogative.

One bill I’d like to see passed is some sort of penalty for allowing an unsecured firearm in a vehicle to be stolen. Tons of guns recovered on criminals here in sioux falls are tracing back to thefts from vehicles. It’s stupid.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group, called the legislation dangerous and said it would have devastating effects, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

In Minnesota the opponets said it would turn into the wild west. There have been only 3 incidents, I believe, involving CC permit holders. While the train has killed over 20 people in the same time frame.

buckybadger wrote:

I’m not necessarily against this…but if people are free to carry without the permit it should be everywhere, not “everywhere but places where lawmakers work.”

That vote wreaks of hypocracy. “More people will carry guns per the second amendment and it will help people protect themselves. However, you carrying a gun in my place of work is a risk. None allowed.”

buckybadger wrote:

I’m not necessarily against this…but if people are free to carry without the permit it should be everywhere, not “everywhere but places where lawmakers work.”

That vote wreaks of hypocracy. “More people will carry guns per the second amendment and it will help people protect themselves. However, you carrying a gun in my place of work is a risk. None allowed.”

I am a SD resident and have a concealed carry permit and I have no problem with being required to apply for a permit. I agree that Stace Nelson’s reasoning wreaks of hypocrisy. You can conceal carry anywhere in SD except where lawmakers work? It makes no sense too me, once again lawmakers putting themselves above citizens.

Tired of the renewal fees and continued training crap here. By the time your done your in in for close to 200 for a 5 year stint for something we should be able to do anyway according to the constitution.

Mike Klein wrote:

Tired of the renewal fees and continued training crap here. By the time your done your in in for close to 200 for a 5 year stint for something we should be able to do anyway according to the constitution.

Us Klein’s / Cline’s must think alike. I posted that same comment a week or so ago on here.