via Ralph writing for TTAG
Sometimes Ralph's sense of humor and sarcasm are hard to follow. In this case when he says the governor did this "to help out the poor folks who would be denied permits under the current system," I believe he's referring to the number of folks each year who apply for concealed carry permits and are found to be disqualified. Under the new law, which the gov had the good sense to veto, those disqualified people would have been carrying concealed guns legally.South Dakota’s hope to joint Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming as a Constitutional Carry state was squashed when its Governor, Republican Dennis Daugaard, vetoed legislation passed by large majorities in the state’s legislature. The measure was opposed by South Dakota’s Sheriffs Association. As reported by USA Today, Sheriff Mike Milstead claims that he was just trying to help out the poor folks who would be denied permits under the current system . . .
Of course Ralph and his friends on The Truth About Guns find this worthy of ridicule. And they wonder why I often find it difficult to delineate between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Under the new law, which the gov had the good sense to veto, those disqualified people would have been carrying concealed guns legally."
ReplyDeleteUh,no, they would not be carrying guns legally. Did you read the law? Or just blindly clap because it was a pro-gun bill?
FWM, If Constitutional Carry were allowed, those who were denied the concealed carry permit would legally carry.
DeleteOr, are you getting on board with my hidden criminal theory?
No, Mikeb, he's reminding you of what we keep saying: Prohibited persons do whatever they want to do with guns, regardless of the law. The vast majority of people who go through the process of getting a license to carry are good citizens. A criminal knows better than to bother and carries anyway.
DeleteGreg, for your theory to work, the "vast majority" would have to be 99.9%. I'm afraid it's not quite that high.
DeleteActually, the number is quite close to that.
DeleteGreg, your "vast majority" is not 99.9%.
Delete"those disqualified people would have been carrying concealed guns legally."
ReplyDeleteBzzzzzt wrong. A disqualified person is still a disqualified person under South Dakota law. You did know that South Dakota already allows any non disqualified person to open carry, right? They don't appear to have the imagined problem of disqualified people carrying now. I don't see why it would be any different if it was concealed.
They don't seem to have a problem? On what do you base that one?
DeleteWhat we keep telling you--the vast majority of legal gun owners do nothing wrong with their guns.
DeleteYes, Greg, given the level of restrictions now, the vast majority do nothing wrong. But that minority who does is too big. Increasing the restrictions would cut down on the wrongdoers.
DeleteWhat's wrong with that?
Your proposals wouldn't reduce bad acts without taking guns away from good owners. That's what's wrong with it. I doubt that any good result would come form your proposals at all.
DeleteGoddamned liberal activist gover..., um, nevermind.
ReplyDeleteLarge majorities in the legislature? Sounds like a veto override to me.
ReplyDeleteThe article said that's unlikely. I don't know why.
Delete