House Approves Plan To Allow Concealed Carry Without Permit

PIERRE, S.D. -

The state House has approved a proposal that would allow people in South Dakota to carry a concealed pistol without a permit.
   
The full House chamber on Tuesday voted to pass the measure that would remove the requirement for a concealed pistol permit from state law.
   
Openly carrying a firearm in South Dakota is legal. Republican Rep. Jim Stalzer of Sioux Falls said in committee he has a concealed pistol permit and has been in situations where he's been glad to have it.
   
But Stalzer said he knows people, including his wife, who accidentally let their permits expire and carried their weapons as criminals under state law.
   
South Dakota Sheriff's Association Executive Director Staci Ackerman says South Dakotans like getting a permit from law enforcement because it's reassuring.

I may be a staunch 2nd Amendment right supporter but not so sure I can 100% back this legislation as this article states the synopsis of the bill.  Without further info I can see accidents(?) just waiting to happen.

The concealed carry hysteria is dumb. If it is concealed no one knows if a person has a gun on his/her person. The only time that a gun is used is the only time concealment is relevant. At that point concealment is not the problem.

Skeptical wrote:

PIERRE, S.D. -

The state House has approved a proposal that would allow people in South Dakota to carry a concealed pistol without a permit.
   
The full House chamber on Tuesday voted to pass the measure that would remove the requirement for a concealed pistol permit from state law.
   
Openly carrying a firearm in South Dakota is legal. Republican Rep. Jim Stalzer of Sioux Falls said in committee he has a concealed pistol permit and has been in situations where he's been glad to have it.
   
But Stalzer said he knows people, including his wife, who accidentally let their permits expire and carried their weapons as criminals under state law.
   
South Dakota Sheriff's Association Executive Director Staci Ackerman says South Dakotans like getting a permit from law enforcement because it's reassuring.

I may be a staunch 2nd Amendment right supporter but not so sure I can 100% back this legislation as this article states the synopsis of the bill.  Without further info I can see accidents(?) just waiting to happen.

We need to be careful that we don't start chipping away at rights or the principles that protect them. Otherwise we will not be any better than the liberals with their feel good solutions that continue to creep along until they have gobbled up an entire right.

The other issue is over who gets to make these feel good decisions. They always seem right when we do it, but when somebody else makes the decisions - not so much. I guess my point is that when a conservative is not 100% in support of a right, I am afraid we step out onto a slippery slope and the progressives always seem to win whenever we are playing on their slippery slopes.

Jammer wrote: We need to be careful that we don't start chipping away at rights or the principles that protect them.  Otherwise we will not be any better than the liberals with their feel good solutions that continue to creep along until they have gobbled up an entire right.

The other issue is over who gets to make these feel good decisions.  They always seem right when we do it, but when somebody else makes the decisions - not so much.  I guess my point is that when a conservative is not 100% in support of a right, I am afraid we step out onto a slippery slope and the progressives always seem to win whenever we are playing on their slippery slopes.

Point made and point accepted. I apologize if comments indicated infringing in any way on this right.

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote: We need to be careful that we don't start chipping away at rights or the principles that protect them.  Otherwise we will not be any better than the liberals with their feel good solutions that continue to creep along until they have gobbled up an entire right.

The other issue is over who gets to make these feel good decisions.  They always seem right when we do it, but when somebody else makes the decisions - not so much.  I guess my point is that when a conservative is not 100% in support of a right, I am afraid we step out onto a slippery slope and the progressives always seem to win whenever we are playing on their slippery slopes.

Point made and point accepted.  I apologize if comments indicated infringing in any way on this right.

No issue at all - it is just difficult sometimes to not fall prey to human nature.  It is a strong force and sometimes feel good solutions sound so good that a person loses sight of what is the right thing to do.  The result is we end up relying on our feelings to make decisions.

I am not sure why this thought came to my mind right now, but I have a question for you Skeptical if you don't mind.  Liberals always want to try to paint the Constitution as being outdated, created by a bunch of backwoods farmers centuries ago that no longer applies.  However, they could not be more wrong.  I heard the answer to why it has stood the test of time and is just as relevant today as it was in 1787.  Do you know why that is?

When I heard the answer to that question is was a total revelation to me, but the more I have thought about it, the more I understand just how correct the answer was.  So if you don't mind playing along, any ideas on what the answer was?

Jammer wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote: We need to be careful that we don't start chipping away at rights or the principles that protect them.  Otherwise we will not be any better than the liberals with their feel good solutions that continue to creep along until they have gobbled up an entire right.

The other issue is over who gets to make these feel good decisions.  They always seem right when we do it, but when somebody else makes the decisions - not so much.  I guess my point is that when a conservative is not 100% in support of a right, I am afraid we step out onto a slippery slope and the progressives always seem to win whenever we are playing on their slippery slopes.

Point made and point accepted.  I apologize if comments indicated infringing in any way on this right.

No issue at all - it is just difficult sometimes to not fall prey to human nature.  It is a strong force and sometimes feel good solutions sound so good that a person loses sight of what is the right thing to do.  The result is we end up relying on our feelings to make decisions.

I am not sure why this thought came to my mind right now, but I have a question for you Skeptical if you don't mind.  Liberals always want to try to paint the Constitution as being outdated, created by a bunch of backwoods farmers centuries ago that no longer applies.  However, they could not be more wrong.  I heard the answer to why it has stood the test of time and is just as relevant today as it was in 1787.  Do you know why that is?

When I heard the answer to that question is was a total revelation to me, but the more I have thought about it, the more I understand just how correct the answer was.  So if you don't mind playing along, any ideas on what the answer was?

Oh  heck I don't mind looking like a dolt because I can think of more than one reason so the below come to mind.

The check and balance system built in to prevent any of the three branches to dominate and the first three words of the  preamble, "WE THE PEOPLE".

The framers had some quite long and heated discussions hammering out the wording of some areas before being accepted by the members, give and take, or compromise, if you will.

Skeptical, I will take my best shot at trying to explain what I heard several years ago.  I am not always the best at doing that, so hopefully this comes across in an understandable fashion.

The Constitution was put in place to secure our rights and the system of government the Founding Fathers arrived at.  They felt strongly that the system they established was not only unique, but based upon previous types of government which had failed they had arrived at a solution that would persevere in protecting the rights of ALL Americans forever.

However, because progressive liberals do not agree with our Founding Principles and want to fundamentally change our country, they have to discredit the Founders and the document they put in place to protect our rights.  One of the ways they do this is to say the Constitution is outdated and needs to be interpreted based upon today's feelings and emotions.  We even had a stupid liberal say on here that it should be based upon our empathies.

Well the Constitution today is just as valid as it was when it was written back in 1787.  And the reason for that is what it is really protecting us against is something that has not changed for thousands of years and that is human nature.

All of the failed governments of the past and the tyrannical governments that remain in place were created by two of the most powerful of human nature forces:  greed and the thirst for power.  As the old saying goes:  "The poor man wants to be rich and the rich man wants to be king".

Therefore, the US Constitution because it really is a set of protections to prevent people from using the two driving forces of human greed and the quenchless thirst for power to deny Americans of their God given rights, it is as relevant today as it was in 1787.  Human nature has not changed for thousands of years and there is no sign it is about to change any time in the future no matter how much fake sincerity and empathy these lying liberals try to pretend they have.

I hope that explanation made sense.  I know the longer I have thought about that issue the more I have come to understand just how accurate it is.

Jammer wrote:Skeptical, I will take my best shot at trying to explain what I heard several years ago.  I am not always the best at doing that, so hopefully this comes across in an understandable fashion.

The Constitution was put in place to secure our rights and the system of government the Founding Fathers arrived at.  They felt strongly that the system they established was not only unique, but based upon previous types of government which had failed they had arrived at a solution that would persevere in protecting the rights of ALL Americans forever.

However, because progressive liberals do not agree with our Founding Principles and want to fundamentally change our country, they have to discredit the Founders and the document they put in place to protect our rights.  One of the ways they do this is to say the Constitution is outdated and needs to be interpreted based upon today's feelings and emotions.  We even had a stupid liberal say on here that it should be based upon our empathies.

Well the Constitution today is just as valid as it was when it was written back in 1787.  And the reason for that is what it is really protecting us against is something that has not changed for thousands of years and that is human nature.

All of the failed governments of the past and the tyrannical governments that remain in place were created by two of the most powerful of human nature forces:  greed and the thirst for power.  As the old saying goes:  "The poor man wants to be rich and the rich man wants to be king".

Therefore, the US Constitution because it really is a set of protections to prevent people from using the two driving forces of human greed and the quenchless thirst for power to deny Americans of their God given rights, it is as relevant today as it was in 1787.  Human nature has not changed for thousands of years and there is no sign it is about to change any time in the future no matter how much fake sincerity and empathy these lying liberals try to pretend they have.

I hope that explanation made sense.  I know the longer I have thought about that issue the more I have come to understand just how accurate it is.

With all due respect my first reaction was to say the first ten Amendments says it all but figured you may have been thinking of something more complicated!

I am confident we are on the same page.

House Approves Plan To Allow Concealed Carry Without Permit

In my opinion the link to HB 1116  below explains it a lot better than the short narrative I used to start the thread.

http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2015/Bills/HB1116P.pdf

Empathy:Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes


Is it any WONDER that liberals make this decision based on FEELINGS?

BladeRunner wrote:Empathy:Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes


Is it any WONDER that liberals make this decision based on FEELINGS?

Did you want your comments here or on the "The differences between conservatives and liberals" thread?

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Empathy:Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes


Is it any WONDER that liberals make this decision based on FEELINGS?

Did you want your comments here or on the "The differences between conservatives and liberals" thread?

Thanks....you're right