Press "Enter" to skip to content

South Dakota Legislature Boosting Guns; New York Assembly Prefers Safety

The South Dakota Legislature still has only one gun bill in the hopper, the rotten Otten-Lautenschlager House Bill 1010, which would castrate our concealed-weapons laws and make it harder for cops to stop gun violence. Coming soon is a bill that would allow school boards to authorize untrained teachers and janitors and perhaps darn near anyone else to carry guns on school grounds, despite overwhelming opposition from superintendents to the idea of more guns at school.

Meanwhile, New York has swiftly enacted strong gun safety regulations:

The measure expands the definition of banned assault weapons, creates a state database for pistol permits, reduces the maximum number of rounds in a magazine and requires background checks on all gun sales, including those between individuals.

"You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense," Cuomo said Tuesday afternoon in the Red Room, which was filled with reporters as well as law enforcement officials, including Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple and city of Albany Police Chief Steven Krokoff [emphasis mine; Casey Seiler, "New Gun Law Offers Reply to Mass Killings," Albany Times Union, 2013.01.16].

Overpower extremism with intelligence, reason, and common sense—someone ought to make that a blog motto.

But where intelligence, reason, and common sense fail, maybe we just need stock prices. New York state government sold off its pension fund holdings in Smith & Wesson four days after the Sandy Hook shooting; yesterday, New York's comptroller Tom DiNapoli announced he's freezing the state's investments in publicly traded firearms companies:

In a statement, DiNapoli — like Cuomo a Democrat — insisted that the decision was not political, but strictly business.

"After the terrible events in Newtown," he said, "it is clear that the national movement toward greater regulation of firearms manufacturers will impose significant reputational, regulatory and statutory hurdles that may affect shareholder value" [Seiler, 2013.01.16].

Commercial pressure, moral pressure, evidentiary pressure—we'll need all those tools to beat back the myth-based pro-gun legislation the South Dakota Legislature seems doomed to debate.

30 Comments

  1. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    "Overpower extremism with intelligence, reason, and common sense—someone ought to make that a blog motto."

    Destroy constitutional rights with elitism and irrational repetition of the cause to the problems ought to be understood by those who have been indoctrinated by the educrats and corporate media.

  2. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.16

    Steve, what "Constitutional rights are being destroyed?" Gun ownership is still allowed in NY. Are you of the belief that Constitutional rights cannot be reasonably restricted? (Before you answer, remember that Roe v Wade, as a decision of the Supreme Court, carries the weight of a Constitutional right.)

    Before we talk indoctrination by corporate media, check to see who has the NRA on their payroll. The gun lobby is the king of corporate media. I think you have your David and Goliath mixed up in this fight.

  3. owen reitzel 2013.01.16

    careful Steve. don't know if Sibby understands common sense

  4. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    "Are you of the belief that Constitutional rights cannot be reasonably restricted?"

    No i don't.

    You can't legally go into a movie theatre and yell fire when there is no fire. Does that mean you cannot yell fire when there really is a fire? Owen, can you apply some common sense to that question?

    The Second Amendment does non give the right for someone to go into a movie theatre and commit murders with a gun. But does that mean you can't have a gun in a movie theatre in case someone decides to commit mass murder? Owen, can you apply some common sense to that question?

    Does common sense say that a gun-free area that bans guns should be expanded to the entire country because mass murders were committed in that gun-free zone? Owen, can you apply some common sense to that question?

  5. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.16

    Steve, we agree that the Second amendment does not in any way give the right to use a gun in an illegal way. Honestly, I was sure we all would agree on that. The restriction that some lawmakers (not here) are looking at is whether there is a reasonable limit on the gun you can take into the movie theatre (or anywhere for that matter). I think that there is a difference between saying a person can own/carry a pistol with a standard clip, and saying a person cannot carry an AK47 or similar tactical weapon with 100 round clips of ammunition. Wouldn't a reasonable restriction look to limit the damage this weapon can do - just as reasonable restrictions in the First Amendment limit the damage free speech can do? The scale of potential carnage has to be a concern when deciding what Second Amendment rights ought to be. That still allows a wide range for self defense doesn't it?

  6. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    Greece. Ireland. Jamaica. Bermuda. England. Canada. New York City. What do all of these countries or jurisdictions have in common? The answer: each government used gun registration lists to later confiscate firearms.

  7. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    "I think that there is a difference between saying a person can own/carry a pistol with a standard clip, and saying a person cannot carry an AK47 or similar tactical weapon with 100 round clips of ammunition. Wouldn't a reasonable restriction look to limit the damage this weapon can do - just as reasonable restrictions in the First Amendment limit the damage free speech can do?"

    The restrictions to rights is that you cannot use them to perform evil acts. If you are not performing evil acts with a semi-automatic firearm that holds a 100 round magazine, then you should be allowed to retain your Second Amendment right. Your premise has historically meant that larger mass murders will occur, not less:

    1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  8. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    Speaking of tyrants like Stalin and Hitler, we currently have a dictator in the White House and he will prove with his anti-Second Amendment agenda that will bypass Congress with his executive orders.

  9. Douglas Wiken 2013.01.16

    Thune is fussing like a cat on a hot tin roof about emotion driving gun control issues. We might ask Thune is emotion is a better reason for gun control than is opposition to gun control because of the greedy grab for NRA money by legislators. The NRA really doesn't represent gun owners or the 2nd Amerndment rights. The primary reason for their existence is gun sales by manufacturers. They drive this by generating irrational fear in the weak-minded. That is another question for Thune, "Is irrational fear a better reason for free flow of guns than is emotion over children being slaughtered is a reason for rational gun regulation?

  10. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.16

    Steve, I know there is fear of a slippery slope when it comes to gun control, but on face, the restrictions being looked at now are not the same "gun control" eliminations referenced in your examples. Banning civilian ownership of tactical weapons and regulating the clip capacity of handguns is not analogous to an undefended nation.

    The invasion of the US is (outside the movie Red Dawn) not a scenario I can believe. given out land mass, population, and military presence in each state of National Guard and fast deployment of federal armed forces, my gun is not needed to defend this nation - the governments guns and highly trained personnel are the "well armed militia" the Second Amendment was hoping to maintain.

    I also cannot believe an domestic evil government take over. The idea that our military will join with the forces of evil seems to go against their pledge to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Again, I give our men and women in uniform credit here. If I had to choose the scenario for the US being attacked, I have more fear of the armed non-government militias/survivalist compounds. The Second Amendment has gone a long way to arm declared enemies of the US.

    To me the real threats to our nation's security from guns, the school shootings, the crime, the domestic abuses, the accidental death weigh heavier on my position than the imagined threats to security. What is happening HAS to have more weight than hypothetical abstractions. "What if" has to take a back seat to "what is."

  11. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    "The idea that our military will join with the forces of evil seems to go against their pledge to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

    Obama just presented himself as the domestic enemy of the Constitution. And the "militia" is not a "standing army". The militia are non-governmental controlled citizens. And those several examples from history is not a slippery slope, it is only the irrational anti-gun apostles who refuse to face the realities of history.

  12. larry kurtz 2013.01.16

    I want a device that hacks car computers.

  13. larry kurtz 2013.01.16

    "Obama Power Grab?! Pure unadulterated misread of the Constitution. Reasonable restrictions already adjudicated by SCOTUS. Already settled." RT @Watchdogsniffer

  14. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    Larry, does the First AMendmetn give us citizens the right to say teh SCOTUS is the one that has misread the Second Amendment? It is very clear that the government schools' gun-free zones are a violation of the Cosntitution.

  15. larry kurtz 2013.01.16

    good goddess, steve: get a grip. but: you're side won. you got your war.

  16. Douglas Wiken 2013.01.16

    We have been invaded. While spending billions to keep Chinese and Russians off our soil, we let 12 or 20 million under-educated illegal aliens tromp over our borders, laws, and schools.

  17. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    So what is teh mqaning of "infringe" as used in the Second Amendment:

    Well that’s a little vague so perhaps Webster’s 1828 Dictionary had a more comprehensive definition:

    1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
    2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
    3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

    Well that seems pretty straightforward. But maybe we should look for places where the Founders used the word and see if they meant the same thing. In the transcript of the June 8, 1789 House of Representatives’ debate on amending the Constitution we find James Madison suggesting for inclusion:

    The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.[5]

    This is followed two paragraphs later by the preliminary version of what would become the Second Amendment:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[6]

    During Massachusetts’ convention to ratify the Constitution, Samuel Adams proposed the following language be added:

    And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience;  or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;  or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States …

    I think from these we can see that our modern day version of shall not be infringed to mean is subject to reasonable regulation would not sit well with either Mr. Madison or Mr. Adams.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/bruce-w-krafft/the-second-amendment-what-it-says-what-it-means/

  18. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    Mr. O'Brien, take special note of this from the above comment:

    "I think from these we can see that our modern day version of shall not be infringed to mean is subject to reasonable regulation would not sit well with either Mr. Madison or Mr. Adams."

    I think we have grounds to impeach Obama and Biden for violating their oaths and "infringing" on law abiding citizen's Constitutional rights regarding their response to the shooting on Sandy Hook's unconstitutional gun-free zone.

  19. Dana P. 2013.01.16

    Steve, I would comment further, but I'm heading to the backyard to bury my guns so the President can't take them. Right after that, I think I'll go look for the Lochness Monster.

    These "he is taking our guns" argument is so ridiculous! And most of the people making this argument are the same folks that have no problem with the government getting all up into my lady parts in the doctor's office. "hey come on in, Gov Dauguuard. Me and the doctor here are just trying to complete an examination. But since you have decided that my privacy is not my right, I might as well let you watch!" Oh to save a life, you say? I can't think of anything better to save a life than to try to do whatever we can to minimize the possibility of our fellow citizens being killed in gun violence.

    I'm wondering if President Obama misunderstood what Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush's feelings were on assault weapons. (they supported banning them, by the way) Or, even more recently, President Obama's opponent in the 2012 election. While Governor, Mr. Romney signed a ban on assault weapons, in his state. Wow!! He trampled all over the Second Amendment (of course he didn't) , yet people weren't yelling "dictator" "domestic enemey" ... blah blah blah.... please stop this ridiculous paranoia.

  20. Sam Peil 2013.01.16

    This morning on the Bridging Differences blog, Pedro Noguera included a link to a story about a teacher from Taft Union HS in California who talked his armed student into putting down his shotgun after on student had already been shot.

    Link to the story about the Taft Union shooting: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/justice/california-school-shooting-teachers/index.html

    Link to the blog: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2013/01/final_thoughts_about_education.html

  21. Steve Sibson 2013.01.16

    "While Governor, Mr. Romney signed a ban on assault weapons, in his state. Wow!! He trampled all over the Second Amendment (of course he didn't) , yet people weren't yelling "dictator" "domestic enemey" ... blah blah blah.... please stop this ridiculous paranoia."

    I did not vote for Romney, and I think you will find me on the record stating Obama and Romney left me disenfranchised. The paranoia is in the minds of the anti-Second Amendment fools that are scared that a gun will jump up and shoot them, even in gun-free zones.

  22. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.16

    Steve, in 2008 the Heller decision made clear that certain limits were allowed:

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    To me, even the SCOTUS has made clear that keeping guns out of schools is OK (not an Obama rule); restricting unusual or dangerous guns [I would put military tactical weapons here - and large capacity clips that make weapons unusually dangerous in that category].

    All this discussion seems silly. Long before anyone would come for your guns - even the ones buried in your back yard, the Supremes will get an opportunity to rule on the issue. That seems a more civil way to settle the issue rather than running out and buying every gun and bullet in a 100 mile radius and waiting for the government to "make your day."

  23. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.16

    Dana, for the record, during the heat of the election I may have referred to Governor Romney as a "domestic enemy," but not for second amendment reasons.

  24. Dana P. 2013.01.16

    Steve O, my apologies. I was directing my comments at Steve S, not you. Thus, my comment about "burying my guns in my backyard" (pure sarcasm) was matching with his wild paranoia about the President "taking our guns". This wild delusional thinking that Steve S has about this. Steve S. is claiming I'm anti-Second Amendment. I am not. I own guns. And I don't think the President is coming after them. Never did, never will.

    Steve S.....again, you missed my point. I don't care whether you voted for Romney or not. HE signed a bill banning assault rifles when he was governor. My point was to be consistent and call him a dictator or a domestic enemy, just as you are doing with President Obama. Both of them apparently stomped on the constitution, according to you. (and please incorporate President Reagan in that description also)

    Steve O. Your summation of the SCOTUS decision is spot on!! And further underscores that cool headed thinking, rather than irrational paranoia is the best way for all of us to respond. Or as I like to say.....rather than being so mislead by those that continue to make money off of folks that are being so gullible right now.

  25. Steve O'Brien 2013.01.17

    Dana, no apologies needed. I knew you were speaking to other-Steve, I was just giving him a cheap jab as well from your clever sarcasm. It was an homage.

Comments are closed.