Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Constitutional Carry Passes Committee in AL & SD

The South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee passed the current “permitless” or Constitutional carry bill, HB 1072 on March 1, 2017. The next stop for the bill is in the full Senate. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives on February 23. From volanteonline.com:

House Bill 1072 passed the state House of Representatives last Thursday by a vote of 37 to 30.

In South Dakota, no state permits are required to possess a gun. According to the South Dakota Firearm Laws, “A person does not need a permit to own a pistol, keep it in his home, business, or property, or visibly carry it.”

A permit is currently required, however, to carry a firearm hidden by a coat or in a purse. Concealed carry permits can be obtained from the sheriff in the county a resident lives in.

Supporters of the bill say it’s a Constitutional right to carry a gun even if concealed, while those opposed believe it provides too much freedom and could pose a safety risk.

At the end of February, 2017, South Dakota has 92,850 active carry permits. From sunherald.com:

At the end of February, there were 92,850 active regular and enhanced permits in South Dakota, according to the Secretary of State’s office. In 2016, 1,460 new enhanced permits were issued.

South Dakota has a population of 868,799 in early 2017. Permit holders are about 10.7% of the total population, and over 25% of the number of people who voted in 2016.

Constitutional or “permitless” carry will likely pass the senate. The senate has 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats. But Governor Dennis Daugaard has said that he will veto the bill.

In Alabama SB 24, the “permitless” or Constitutional carry bill, cleared another hurdle on the first of March, 2017. It passed the Senate Judiciary committee. From thenewstribune.com:

A bill that would add Alabama to the list of states that allow people to carry a concealed handgun without a permit advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

The committee voted 6-3 for the bill after a fiery public hearing with law enforcement officers largely opposing it and gun rights groups speaking in favor of it. The bill now moves to the Senate floor.

There were numerous Second Amendment supporters speaking in favor of the bill.  Many said the should not have to pay or ask for government permission to exercise a Constitutional right.

Those speaking against the bill were a faction of law enforcement, mainly Sheriffs.  They claimed the bill would remove an important tool of law enforcement.  Not all sheriffs were against the bill.  Some spoke for it, claiming that it only supported Second Amendment rights.

Some supporters of the bill say that Sheriffs oppose it because they are the recipients of the concealed carry permit fees.  From comments at legiscan.com:

Pistol permits have been the sacrid cash cow for Alabama Sheriffs for too long. Their opposition is not public safety, but loss of the almost unchecked use of the funds these permits generate. NO one person should have the power to take away a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. That power allows Sheriffs to not issue a permit to a person based on personal, political, or many other issues that have nothing to do with public safety.

Alabama is on track to be the second state to pass Constitutional carry this year. New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a bill that brought New Hampshire into the Constitutional carry club on 22 February, 2017.

North Dakota and Kentucky are in the race to be the second state to join the Constitutional carry club as well.

There are 12 current members. They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

Several other states have legislation introduced or in process.  Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, Virgina, Utah, and Wisconsin are all considering Constitutional carry. That list may increase as the year progresses. Montana passed a “permitless” carry bill for the third time this year. The bill would have extended “permitless” carry to the 1% of the state where a permit is required, but it was vetoed for a second time by Governor Bullock.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch


Editor’s Note: So here we have a tale of 2 Governors.  Both are in states with a high number of law abiding gun owners.  Both in which the populace and their representatives WANT Constitutional Carry as opposed to having to ask and pay the state for the right to keep and bear arms.

In one state, Alabama with a rights supportive Governor in Republican Robert Bentley is poised to join the dozen other states that freely recognizes the rights of its citizens.  The other, a surprising gun hating Republican Governor by the name of Dennis Daugaard has vowed to veto any Constitutional Carry bill that is put before him following in the footsteps of fellow authoritarian Governor, the Democrat from Montana Steve Bullock.

This just goes to show that it is important not only who is elected for office but who is nominated in primaries.  Just because a person is a Republican does not mean he will support your 2nd Amendment rights.  It is important to nominate and elect the RIGHT type of Republican…or in the rare case, the endangered species of pro gun rights Democrat politician.

Here’s to hoping that Governor Bullock can get replaced after the next election and that there are enough votes in the South Dakota Senate to override Daugaard’s veto.

If these three states were able to get their Constitutional Carry bills passed a full THIRD of the country would not require ANY type of oppressive permission in order for its citizens to exercise their rights.  And that is a good start.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend