SD is Constitutional Carry

View · by **jdege** on Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:24 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/us/sd-concealed-carry-law-trnd/index.html
South Dakota is the latest state to allow concealed handguns to be carried without a permit

View · by **xd ED** on Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:36 pm

Comparing SoDak's gov to our current, and recent versions...all I can say is: Life is not always fair.

Constitutional Carry was the first bill she signed into law as new gov....

Well done SoDak voters :bravo:

View · by **INOR** on Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:52 pm

Good news. Would love to see that everywhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **jdege** on Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:40 pm

Truthfully, I'd be happier to see more may-issue states go shall-issue than to see shall-issue states go constitutional carry.

View · by **Ghost** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:11 am

jdege wrote:Truthfully, I'd be happier to see more may-issue states go shall-issue than to see shall-issue states go constitutional carry.

Why so?

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:30 am

There can't be that many may-issue states left. California, Hawaii and a half dozen or so crapholes in the NE.

View · by **Tronster** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:11 am

Ghost wrote:
jdege wrote:Truthfully, I'd be happier to see more may-issue states go shall-issue than to see shall-issue states go constitutional carry.

Why so?

Because there are still 8 states that are 'may issue' which let's be honest is more akin to "no carry for you unless you've got connections". The difference in the number of people carrying in shall issue vs constitutional will be much less than may issue, where an entire state population is pretty much barred outright by LEO whims. Most people who want to carry in shall issue have already jumped through the two or three hoops to get a ptc.

And anyone saying "they should just move out of those states" haven't factored in that people are not going to uproot everything including their spouse and kids and start over just because of guns. A single guy might be willing to do that, but how many wives are going to say "Sure hun, the kids and I will leave our career, school, friends, family and everything we know, whatever it takes to keep your guns".

View · by **Ghost** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:58 am

Tronster wrote:
Ghost wrote:
jdege wrote:Truthfully, I'd be happier to see more may-issue states go shall-issue than to see shall-issue states go constitutional carry.

Why so?

Because there are still 8 states that are 'may issue' which let's be honest is more akin to "no carry for you unless you've got connections". The difference in the number of people carrying in shall issue vs constitutional will be much less than may issue, where an entire state population is pretty much barred outright by LEO whims. Most people who want to carry in shall issue have already jumped through the two or three hoops to get a ptc.

And anyone saying "they should just move out of those states" haven't factored in that people are not going to uproot everything including their spouse and kids and start over just because of guns. A single guy might be willing to do that, but how many wives are going to say "Sure hun, the kids and I will leave our career, school, friends, family and everything we know, whatever it takes to keep your guns".

I'd think that if 42 states go constitutional carry then you'll see those remaining 8 progress, the direction everything is going is showing that it's all moving in the right direction.

View · by **jdege** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:41 am

Ghost wrote:
jdege wrote:Truthfully, I'd be happier to see more may-issue states go shall-issue than to see shall-issue states go constitutional carry.

Why so?

Because I think it's more important that law-abiding citizens in New York and California have a legal way to carry, than for the citizens of South Dakota to carry without a permit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that permits accomplish anything but making the ignorant feel more comfortable, but I don't object to permits, provided that the requirements for issue are reasonably achievable, and the process for issue is non-discretionary.

I strongly object to the idea that any government-issued license or permit should ever be discretionary. Not just for guns, but for every area of government permitting or licensing.

And as for guns, if you're a woman living in fear that your violent ex is going to find you, or some retiree who's found that the neighborhood he raised his kids in isn't quite the same as what it used to be, and you decide that you'd be safer carrying a gun, the government has no business telling you your wrong.

Deciding upon need is your responsibility, not the governments.

View · by **jdege** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:44 am

Ghost wrote:I'd think that if 42 states go constitutional carry then you'll see those remaining 8 progress, the direction everything is going is showing that it's all moving in the right direction.

I think a lot of things. Not all of which have turned out to be true.

What I think we'll need, to get around NYC's system of entrenched corruption, is federally mandated reciprocity - without a residency requirement.

A federal law requiring that NYC recognize Florida carry permits - even for residents of NYC.

View · by **Jackpine Savage** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:59 am

jdege wrote:
Ghost wrote:I'd think that if 42 states go constitutional carry then you'll see those remaining 8 progress, the direction everything is going is showing that it's all moving in the right direction.

I think a lot of things. Not all of which have turned out to be true.

What I think we'll need, to get around NYC's system of entrenched corruption, is federally mandated reciprocity - without a residency requirement.

A federal law requiring that NYC recognize Florida carry permits - even for residents of NYC.

New York currently ignores federal law on Interstate firearms transportation. I think the only way to eliminate NY corruption is an armed revolt.

View · by **Tronster** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:12 am

I dunno about nationally MANDATED reciprocity, it kinda sounds like stomping on states rights. The resiprocity map is a mess, so perhaps a national standard that states could opt into recognizing would be easier without stepping on the states rights.

As far as interstate transport why are the feds not going after NY (or is it NJ) for violating federal law?

View · by **jdege** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:55 pm

Tronster wrote:As far as interstate transport why are the feds not going after NY (or is it NJ) for violating federal law?

Actually, the primary offender is the New York Port Authority Police, which polices JFK, La Guardia, and Newark airports.

Which is why you sometimes see reports from NJ.

Why aren't the feds getting involved? It's a civil issue.

Lawsuits have been filed, but the IRKBA dies at the 3rd Circuit.

And SCOTUS has denied cert.

View · by **andrewP** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:12 pm

jdege wrote:And SCOTUS has denied cert.

Is there a case or cases I can look up? I'd be curious to read the facts, and the statement(s) denying cert.

View · by **jdege** on Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:44 pm

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423/revell-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey/