Nice. A great step in the right direction. Good to see some states moving toward more liberty... Lord knows ere are plenty going the other way.
I agree that one should not be required to pay to exercise a constitutional right. However, I wonder how this will affect reciprocity. Will other states accept a SD driver's license in lieu of a concealed carry permit?
While training is an excellent idea, I don't think we want some state agency telling us what minimum "training" is. If we are giving people the right to carry a loaded, concealed firearm, IMHO we should certainly be able to trust them in not screwing up. And the data in states that already have constitutional carry ( AFAIK Vermont, Alaska, AZ, Wyoming and maybe some more) bears out the fact that CC folk are responsible individuals who do not go around screwing up.
Agree. Where do people get the absurd idea that government at any level is competent to declare who is and who is not adequately trained to do anything? Has anyone here attended the stupid and useless 8 hours of state-mandated training for your (unconstitutional) carry license? Government is the least qualified agency on this earth to train anyone to do anything! If you don't believe me, just mosey on down to your nearest airport and let those tip-o'-the-spear, high-school-equivalency, blue-gloved TSA types do their thing to ensure you are not a mad Islamic bomber boarding an airplane.
Disagree vigorously! We are not giving people the right to carry firearms. That right exists already. Government is unjust, and our government is unlawfully infringing our right, when it unjustly denies this natural right to self defense. Whether or not armed citizens are responsible or whether or not they screw up while carrying is utterly irrelevant to either the Constitutional or the natural rights imperative. Whether government has the moral or Constitutional authority to deny that right to anyone is the only relevant question. All else is at best rubbish, and at worst deliberate misdirection to distract the mind of the free citizen from creeping usurpation of his sovereignty.
I doubt it, unfortunately. AZ actually has a CCL you can get, but it isn't required for carrying a pistol inside state lines. The permit allows you to travel to other states that honor it, as well as allow you to carry other things, like a blackjack and some kinds of unusual knives.
I would expected SD to do something similar, or at the least, work something out.
BUT GUYS, only certain people should be free. We can't trust just ANYONE ON THE STREET walk around with responsibility, they're just normal people, unlike the police and military who are created in tubes and raised in special camps to be perfectly virtuous and noble.
We should let the most corrupt and least capable among us (aka the state) decide who is responsible. RIGHT!?!?!
We should let the most corrupt and least capable among us (aka the state) decide who is responsible. RIGHT!?!?!
Excellent, SirROFL! Excellent and spot on. You have exactly captured the entire body of firearms legislation from the invention of the firearm.
Firearms legislation always and intrinsically and unalterably is elitist at its core in exactly the manner illustrated by SirROFL. It also very often is frankly racist. Always reject the stated reason for whatever firearms legislation is currently under discussion, as the stated reason always is a lie. Scrape away all the layers of misdirection and you always will find at its core an elitist hatred of mankind that seeks to keep the common man dependent on his elite masters for his (always illusory) security.
It is worth repeating: every single firearms law ever enacted tips the balance of power away from the law-abiding, toward the lawless.
Similar threads
