Rep. Betty Olson's House Bill 1065, which would make concealed weapons permits free, distracts us from practical policy discussions. Rep. Olson's House Bill 1066 extends the distraction with a dangerous reversal of public safety law.
The pistol-packing Prairie City representative wants to remove one word from one line of South Dakota law:
Section 1. That § 22-14-27 be amended to read as follows:
22-14-27. It isnota defense to a prosecution under § 22-14-23 that the defendant was the holder of a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to §§ 23-7-7 and 23-7-7.1.
The statute under which Rep. Olson doesn't want concealed weapons permit holders to be prosecuted is SDCL 22-14-23, which bans firearms and other dangerous weapons from county courthouses.
We already have exceptions to the courthouse weapons ban. SDCL 22-14-24 allows public officials (including judges!) to carry weapons in courthouses. SDCL 22-14-24 also excepts "The lawful carrying of firearms, or other dangerous weapons in a county courthouse incident to hunting, or gun safety course or to other lawful purposes." One could argue that Olson's HB 1066 simply clarifies the implicit statement of SDCL 22-14-24, that concealed carry for self-defense is a lawful purpose.
But HB 1066 is more radical gun absolutism putting public officials and the rule of law at risk. Courthouses are temples of civil society. Courthouses stand for our vow under the social contract to surrender our personal freedom to use force and instead resolve heated disputes by law. There may be no more appropriate place than a courthouse for loyal citizens to check their guns at the door and declare the law is supreme. Never mind the mad crossfire that will erupt if a dangerous criminal or a distraught dad losing a custody case goes berserk and uniformed police and civilians with concealed weapons all draw; letting anyone other than agents of the state carry firearms in a courthouse invites rebellion against the rule of law.
So that's two bad gun bills in one day from Rep. Olson. Can she make it to three?
An article in Mitchell DRepublic claimed that typing "South Dakota" into Google and waiting for completion text generated nothing. Not quite true however.
But, if our Republican legislators keep going as indicated with wingnut lunacy, typing "South Dakota" will be auto-completed with "South Dakota crazy legislators".
Rep. Olson should just submit one bill that meets her intent. This piecemeal approach smacks of cowardice. I suggest something like what follows (although it might be a little too liberal for Olson):
Section 1: All persons residing in or traveling through the State of South Dakota or through its air space must carry a shotgun, rifle, and hand gun at all times.
Section 2: No one may be exempt from this statute.
Section 3: Those seeking exemptions for religous or philosophical reasons will be publically flogged.
Doug, today Google autosuggests "...state university", "...state football", and "...storm." You are right that Rep. Olson et al. only threaten to put crazier things in Google's brain.
Kal Lis, do we cut her slack and acknowledge the piecemeal approach as viable practical politics? You and I know how hard it is to turn pure LD principles into effective policy that will overcome a politics disad without the magic wand of fiat. :-)
from Kal Lis: '...just submit one bill that meets..."
Yes, just get the $~!# together, instead of this diarrhea of bills that seem to imply that SD is lax in some areas. And that by passing these bills, SD can be seen as ex-lax? (insert my apology for this here).
What if John Q Public sincerely believes guns are inherently evil,especially when carried by mindless,zombie wingnuts in South Dakota. Is his/her sincere beliefs not sincere enough to pass 2nd amendment musterbation rhetoric for state gubmint buildings? South Dakota's reprehensible Rep. Olson is sounding like your version of Texas' Louie Gohmert. That is bad!
... so armed officers of the law in a court house is ~not~ a display of the lack of faith in a civil society? Remind me why what's not okay for Citizen A is fine & dandy for Officer B.
I have to admit, though, I'm baffled on the exception already on the books allowing guns in court houses incident to hunting... how the heck does that happen? The deer just happened to run into the court house?
Cory, I got similar results for "South Dakota". "Transportation" also turned up. I am surprised that "astrology and legislature" did not also turn up however.
Would not the opposite be true? That the bill shows a sincere faith in our civil society?
The opposite would not be true, Rep. Nelson. Civil society is based on the idea that we do not have to act as if we were in the state of nature, constantly exerting deadly force to secure our freedom. Armed officers represent some lack of faith in civilization, but they do represent our willing submission to the social contract and to the idea that such force is properly exercised by the state under the authority of the popular will, not by individuals.
On that hunting exception, I wonder, Wayne, if maybe there's just some sloppy punctuation. Maybe it's supposed to refer to hunting courses and gun safety courses. If a deer runs into the courthouse or into my house, don't shoot! :-)
(The fact that a legislator will take time during the session to engage citizens in civic discourse bolsters my faith in civil society. Thanks, Rep. Nelson!)
Anybody recall the time when columnist Jack Anderson walked into Senator Bob Dole's Capitol Hill office with a .45 and scared the bejeezus out of Dole? I'm thinking that Bob Dole is still cleaning his shorts,where ever he is. Ah,the good old days.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/27/us/reporter-reprimanded-in-capitol-gun-incident.html
Bob Dole is still not amused. How times have changed.
rep. nelson, your party, nation-wide, has created the "no-spin" zone which completely up-ends common sense. thank you for clearly providing this example "that the bill shows a sincere faith in our civil society". i do not doubt your faith. similarly, i believe don kopp has faith in his climate denial beliefs. but such beliefs are merely opinions and have nothing to do with facts. they do however go a long way toward creating an uncivil society. (e.g. "you lie" shouted from the floor)
Shouting "you lie" from the floor or ceiling seems like bad form to me. Fat men should walk the stairs and not ride elevators before they shout "you lie" from the floor.