|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
SD: Protecting our way of life
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In late January, I signed my first bill into law. I’m proud to say that this bill – Senate Bill 47 – further protects the constitutionally given freedoms of law-abiding South Dakotans.
Constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, is a policy change that has been under consideration in Pierre for several years. The policy was debated and vetted. My administration – as well as many legislators – took time to listen to South Dakotans, law enforcement, and industry experts on this issue. That robust and thoughtful process produced the version I signed into law. I’m grateful to the legislative leadership who pulled the bill across the finish line. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/2/2019)
|
| 502 Bad Gateway |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
