Weather Forecast


Letter: 'Constitutional Carry' can't be disputed

This is a response to the "As Others See It: Weapons permits are a must" published Jan. 30.

This opinion piece is misleading the reader, and not all together factually accurate. The article talks about the permit for Concealed Carry in South Dakota, and the efforts of Rep. Don Kopp and others to change the law to what other states have adopted as "Constitutional Carry."

It goes on to say that "most everyone knows that it doesn't take much to get a handgun in South Dakota." In comparison to where else, I ask? Let's take Minnesota, which most would agree (at least according to voting history) is somewhat less conservative overall than South Dakota. Minnesota requires, at least, a permit to purchase obtained from the sheriff after a background check and fee. South Dakota doesn't require this, but requires one to fill out a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer form and pass a background check. It's the same background check the sheriff's department uses for concealed carry, and additionally in Minnesota, permit to purchase. The point here is that you still have to pass a federal background check to even purchase a weapon, which is step one in the two-step process of getting your concealed carry permit.

Repealing CCW laws are not going to have any effect on crime because, as I pointed out, as long as current rules and regulations are being followed criminals/insane aren't eligible to purchase them. The Achilles' Heel of the gun control crowd's argument is the fact that criminals don't follow the law. They will get those guns outside of the legal means that law-abiding citizens use, and do you think they will then obey the need for a permit for concealed carry? No. This day in age, any further form of gun control only hurts the law-abiding citizen. The only sensible gun control is already law: criminals, the insane and the violent are disqualified from legally obtaining a firearm. Criminals will always get the guns, we need to learn to accept this fact of life and focus on the rights of the law-abiding citizen.

As the son of a police officer, I hold the safety of police in high regard. To address this issue I have this to say: Police often ask if weapons or firearms are on your person when being questioned. That's just common sense police procedure. Need I mention criminal vs. law-abiding citizen in this scenario? It's the same reason I need not detail the ineffectiveness of gun-free zones, per the criminal.

I support Constitutional Carry for one main reason: The Second Amendment itself is not the granting power. The Second Amendment clearly acknowledges the god-given right of the citizen, and militia (mentioned separately), to bear arms. Why are we paying a fee for something the law already recognizes as a right? If you've already met the prior obligations to obtain your firearm, the government doesn't need to levy a fee to exercise the existing right. What's next, a First Amendment permit to post on Facebook? Hey, it's just another Amendment, right? There really is no solid argument against Constitutional Carry.