South Dakota: Concealed carry permit may not be necessary in the future

[KMA]

I found this article:


"End To Concealed Gun Permits Considered
… A South Dakota legislative committee is considering a measure that says people no longer would have to get a permit to carry a concealed gun ..."

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm/End_To_Concealed_Gun_Permits_Considered/?Id=126516

[JFootin]

Sounds like a libertarian idea. Hurah!

[ltxi]

Constitutional carry seems to be catching on in western northern tier states. Just hope as it does these states retain some optional permit system to cover their citizens beyond their borders.

[muggsy]

Sounds like a measure worth backing. I've never understood why we need a permit to exercise a constitutional right.

[tv_racin_fan]

Sounds like a measure worth backing. I've never understood why we need a permit to exercise a constitutional right.

You don't... according to those checks and balances you speak of.. all you need do is carry and point out that it is a constitutional right and mention that you are exercising your check to balance their tyranny.

[muggsy]

You don't... according to those checks and balances you speak of.. all you need do is carry and point out that it is a constitutional right and mention that you are exercising your check to balance their tyranny.

Your comment was totally uncalled for and unappreciated. Our founding fathers believed in a system of checks and balances. I think that I'm in good company.

[tv_racin_fan]

Your comment was totally uncalled for and unappreciated. Our founding fathers believed in a system of checks and balances. I think that I'm in good company.

I happen to believe in a system of checks and balances. BUT I don't have blind faith in the members of my govt to abide by them which it would seem you do. As has been asked again and again when are these checks and balances going to catch up to some of the transgressions of our govt from decades if not centuries ago? The very founding fathers you speak of violated the US Constitution and in point of fact those checks and balances you speak so highly of have yet to kick in on at least some of them.

Take for instance the second amendment. It quite clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it not? And yet quite clearly those rights have been infringed on by congress in passing bills such as the NFA and the President signing those bills into law and then the SCOTUS upholds those very laws as Constitutional. Seems to me that that is a failure of the checks n balances system. The US Constitution is supposed to lay out that checks n balances system and in fact the founding fathers would agree that the second amendment is the most important part of that system. However when the very govt who is supposed to respect that system and follow the precepts laid out in that document do neither and the sheeple do not step up then in my opinion that system has failed. EVENTUALLY it may work but until it actually does it has failed to prevent the very tyranny it was designed to prevent.

The founding fathers put no restriction in the type of arm one could keep for a reason. I believe that reason is they understood that even such a seemingly tiny restriction is the heart of the matter. When the govt can decide what sort of arm one can keep it might just as well decide that one can not keep an arm at all because for sure the govt is not going to allow the people to keep the sort of arm that would allow the people to fight the tyranny of govt. Back in the day the typical hunter was allowed to possess even the most advanced rifle whereas the typical soldier carried the much less advanced musket.