Que song please;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/youtube]
I knew it would not take long for the legislative session to turn into ‘Guns and Abortion‘
RAPID CITY, SD – A Rapid City lawmaker says South Dakotans shouldn’t have to get a state permit to carry a concealed gun. Republican state Rep. Don Kopp says he’s introducing a bill in the South Dakota Legislature to get rid of the permit requirement. Kopp says if a South Dakota resident doesn’t have a criminal record, he or she should be able to carry a concealed gun without getting a permit and having to pay $10 for it. Kopp believes the permit requirement violates a person’s right to bear arms. His bill has been assigned to the South Dakota House’s Judiciary Committee.
But can the unborn carry a concealed weapon? Oh, wait, I can almost hear the faint sound of Don’s wheels spinning.
As of last year, Wyoming eliminated concealed weapons restrictions. I’d say watch them a few years and see how it works. There’s not a crime problem here. However, I’ve armed myself to the teeth for when SFPD or the code enforcer breaks in or trespasses. City authorities have little regard for constitutional rights or civil liberties. Unfortunately, the only method left to protect your freedom and property is bearing firearms.
Ohh poor baby he doesn’t want to have to get a permit to carry a gun nor pay a whole 10 bucks. But probably he doesn’t have a problem with the laundry list of documents that is needed to get or renew a drivers license in SoDak. Passport, W-2, social security card, marriage license if you are a woman and have a different last name, credit card statement, utility bill, phone bill, rent receipt, first born and pay stub. And Donnie Kop doesn’t want to be bothered with paper work for a GUN. REALLLLLLLLY????!!!!!!
http://dps.sd.gov/licensing/driver_licensing/obtain_a_license.aspx
They aren’t worried about illegal guns, just illegal aliens. Every year, just like clockwork the legislature wastes time on guns and abortion.
From time to time we experience something known as “moronic convergence.” This is the phenomenon of a moron’s happening to have an idea that makes sense in the real world. It doesn’t happen often, and it won’t last long.
I support the proposal that I should be able to carry the weapon of my choice to defend myself free from government approval.
I agree. Then why not just do it?
Helga,
There is no “right to drive” in the Constitution.
Our current permit process is silly. It doesn’t prevent criminals from carrying guns, so what purpose does it serve? As far as I can figure, it is just one more thing police can use against an otherwise law abiding citizen during a traffic stop. Without that permit, you can’t have a weapon in your car unless it is visible to an officer, yet a visible gun on the seat next to you is bound to create some tension.
Seems like Kopp is on to something here.
I have never owned a gun in the 39 years of my life, and I still don’t understand how that ownership would make me a safer person. I’m all for gun rights, but it’s initial intent was to form local militias, something that we don’t need anymore. Like I said, the public should have a right to gun ownership, but I don’t see the need of carrying your weapon everywhere you go.
The problem is, the current laws require a permit to travel to and from a gun range with a gun in a bag or a case or stored in a glovebox because that gun would be considered concealed. The only way around this is to store it in locked trunk, but pickups and SUVs don’t have trunks. Another way is to leave it visible on the seat of the vehicle, but I feel this is just begging for trouble not only from law enforcement, but from anyone who happens to see it as you are stopped at a red light.
So you may not see the need to carry a weapon everywhere (I agree as I would have no desire to carry one with me at all times), but the permit requirement makes it a burden upon someone who wishes to remain lawful, and does nothing to prevent a criminal from illegally concealing a weapon.
I see the entire permit process as just another petty charge law enforcement can tack on during a traffic stop if they can’t find anything more important. Why give them the power? I put it right up there with that silly law that used to allow them to pull over cars for having something hanging from the rearview mirror.
Detroit: There is one item that can level the playing field if a person is confronted by a stronger person intent on causing harm. That is a firearm (assuming some knowledge of its use). Carrying everywhere is not necessary; a stronger person need only be aware of the possibility.
Craig: That silly “dangling object” law is still in effect and is still being used as probable cause to make stops, although it is almost never ticketed unless the fishing expedition turns up something else.
l3wis: “Why not just do it?”
You mean, “Why not just break the law?”
We’re confronted by a “stronger person intent on causing harm” oh so often.
Scott – how many times is an acceptable number of times to be confronted by a stronger person intent on causing harm? I think a strong argument could be made that ONCE is too many. I like to be prepared.
I like to be prepared.
Obviously I’m a 2nd Ammendment supporter, but I find this logic comical.
If you really want to be prepared, carry a Swiss Army Knife and a condom. You’ll have a lot higher chance of needing one of those two items than you ever will of needing a gun and they both can save your life (just ask that guy who had to hack off his own arm or anyone who has ever slept with Magic Johnson).
Bob: I thought the dangling object law was changed in that it can no longer be the primary reason to pull someone over? So the current law would require them to see another violation before they could cite someone for it correct?
I might be wrong, I just seem to recall this being big news when the change was made (it was probably a slow news day).
Craig makes a good point. A blanket and energy bars in your car during the winter may also save your life before a gun would. I’m just not buying that in a modern society we need to be toting guns everywhere. Seems silly to me.
It’s not an issue that I feel strongly about, but the likelihood of needing that gun to combat somebody “stronger” is so low that this argument is silly to me.
Why try to make it an either/or situations. By all means, carry a blanket and candy bars if you want. Also, carry a 10mm Sig Sauer if you want. It’s not like the bill would force you to carry a gun. The guy walking near you carrying a pistol protects you, too. Those intent on doing harm with a gun don’t bother with permits.
Scott: It’s not silly to the woman walking to her car in a parking garage at midnight.
LOL! The old ‘parking garage’ scenario. Maybe should have asked a security guard to walk with her. Is this the same Bob Newland I know or someone else?
I have a question…
Would it still be illegal to bear a concealed weapon on the floor of the state legislature? In the gallery?
If so – why?
Nobody here but us responsible citizens, right?
Randall – you bring up a great point. We carried shotguns all the time on the farm in our farm truck, mostly for coyotes and any other varmints that needed to be eliminated. Guns are dangerous. They can get jammed easily, shells can misfire, the safety can fail, etc. ect. Also one of my very good friends shot and killed himself in the head ‘playing’ with a pistol. They are not toys.
It amazes me that we regulate driving a motor vehicle to the hilt (which is okay) but so blatantly think guns are no big deal when it comes to regulation. No one wants to take away your gun, and if you are using it legally, good for you, but an ounce of prevention when it comes to a deadly weapon (cars or guns) is a good thing.
Here’s how I am prepared: In my vehicle I have a blanket, non-perishable foods, tool kit, duct tape, rope, tow strap, chain, motor oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, power steering fluid, coolant, washer fluid, bolt cutter, razor knife, hunting knife, .243 rifle, 12 ga shotgun, 40cal pistol, appropriate ammo for all, first aid kit, flashlights, matches, lighters, 2-way radios, jumper cables, gloves, ice scrapers, power inverter. All of these items are concealed but readily available. I rarely use ANY of it and would prefer to use NONE of it but its good to know it is all there all the time.
Looks like Craig et al need to give Hal Wick a call and get him to re-introduce his bill that everyone in the state of SD must carry a gun. It went over so well the first time he proposed it I am sure everyone will want to sign on to it a second time.
Bob, in close quarters, when confronted by a person of superior strength (or skills), you may find that a concealed handgun will be fairly useless. Yoiu need a little distance before it would become an advantage to you. A ball point pen may be more effective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSEjQ2N5rhQ
Helga, I support the right to bear arms, but I also support the right for people to make their own choice. I would never force someone to carry a gun just as I would never prevent someone* from doing so.
Let’s not slide down that slippery slope quite yet shall we? Believe it or not, as is the case with most hot-button issues there is some common ground to be found here.
* There are exceptions to the rule such as convicted felons, minors, and those who think it is a great idea to carry a loaded weapon into an elementary school etc.
I believe I have the natural (i.e., “God”-given) right to possess and use a naturally-occurring plant in any manner I fucking want to, assuming I don’t engage anyone who doesn’t want to be engaged in my depraved behavior.
I also believe I have the natural right to defend my property and myself in a reasonable manner. “Reasonable” can also be defined as “adequate.”
I do not understand the arguments of those who oppose my natural right to possess a weapon that I define as “self-defense.” Do not bother me with remarks about machine guns? (yes), tanks? (yes), F-16s? (yes), nukes? (well, maybe we can talk).
People who intend harm don’t bother with the law about permits. Everyone else who wants to pack is my friend.
rufus: I pack a knife. I would pack a pistol a lot of the time except that I am a pot felon. I can’t. If I get caught with a gun I get whacked hard.
If it were my choice, I’d pack a knife and a gun; then I could choose at the appropriate time which to use. Or not. The person I have to fear at the moment must appraise how prepared I might be.
Detroit: What is inconsistent about my positions?
Hey, I don’t have a problem with people who want to carry guns, but it should be regulated just like driving vehicles.
“Hey, I don’t have a problem with people who want to carry guns, but it should be regulated just like driving vehicles.” Textbook case of laws that make people “feel good” but don’t so a damn thing except make criminals out of honest people.
Real criminals aren’t going to register their guns because as criminals they can’t legally own guns. They still HAVE guns because they are criminals, and guns are handy in that line of work.
So what you are saying is law-abiding citizens should have the same rights as criminals? Because lowering ourselves to their level will prevent more crime? Interesting argument.
Are you high right now? What do you mean law-abiding citizens should have the same rights as criminals? What about my statement suggests lowering ourselves to their level?
Most of the gun laws currently on the books in any state prevent any crime whatsoever. None of the new gun laws that will be enacted will prevent crime. They’ll make a lot of people “feel good” because they care enough to get these laws passed but they don’t do dick to prevent crime. Criminals don’t care about breaking the law — they are criminals and that’s what they do best.
What possible good comes from law-abiding citizens registering their firearms and getting a permit to carry those firearms in a concealed manner? The people who we need to worry about owning and carrying weapons are criminals and as already established, they are not going to follow the laws.
And how is this (non) law going to change things when it comes to criminals attaining guns? It isn’t.
It’s going to keep law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals because they didn’t comply with a useless bullshit law requiring them to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The law does NOTHING.
Exactly.
The law would obviate the bullshit process of obtaining a “license” to do what any person should be able to do anyway.
Great point Bob. Why should I have to pay property taxes? I have a right to property ownership. Why should I have to maintain the city’s property in the BLVD at my expense?
Don’t agree with either of those issues, but my house has never mis-fired and killed anyone. Also, my Elm, in the blvd , that the city owns has never killed anyone, accidentally. But gosh darn, a city contractor removing snow from my street (that I pay for and cover insurance on thru my taxes) had his window scratched because of a low hanging branch.
A misfire never kills anything. A misused firearm might.
Property tax is immoral. It simply means you can never own property.
The reason that getting a driver’s license is more regulated vs.carrying a firearm is simply 2 reasons:
1. There is no constitutionally granted right to operate a vehicle because:
2. Motor vehicles are by far more dangerous and kill far more people per year than firearms through “accidental deaths”. And the victims of these deaths ar e largely innocent bystanders. Statistics also showmore “manslaughter and homicides” per year are committed with motor vehicles.