Press "Enter" to skip to content

Jensen Runs for District 16 House, Says Bolin Not Conservative Enough on Guns

Speaking of Jim Bolin, the District 16 representative from Canton faces a primary challenger. Following through on a promise made last spring, Kevin D. Jensen is running again for District 16 House. Jensen says he's running because Jim Bolin isn't conservative enough. In Jensen's mind, real conservatives let folks with mental problems have guns:

I believe Mr. Bolin has not been as conservative as I would like to see. I know that he has not fully supported all second Amendment protection bills and he voted to approve you losing all your rights if you are found to have a "serious emotional distrubance [sic]". Previously you had too [sic] have diagnosis of having a "severe mentall [sic] illness" to be judged incapable of maintaing [sic] your rights. That law changed last session [Kevin D. Jensen, campaign website, downloaded 2014.01.07].

I'm going to need some Constitutional authority to show me the Founding Fathers' intent to take no action against disturbed people walking around with guns. I'm also going to need a ruling from my attentive readers on whether four sics in one paragraph constitute evidence of unfitness for public office.

And perhaps most relevantly, I'm going to need a citation of the nefarious new statute to which Jensen refers. I'm looking at the eleven bills listed under the "Firearms" subject from the 2013 session, and I'm not seeing any bill, passed or failed, that mentions taking away all Second Amendment rights from folks diagnosed with "severe mental disturbance."

Jensen finished third in the 2012 primary. If Bolin's appointed Housemate Dave Anderson runs for election along with Bolin, expect Jensen to repeat that performance this June.


  1. Rorschach 2014.01.07

    Sovth Dakota Republican legislaters are out to dissarm the pubic!! We godda stop 'em!!!

    Kevin D. Jensen sounds like a kook and writes like an imbecile. Maybe he thinks that "serious emotional distrubance" hits a little too close to home.

  2. Cranky Old Dude 2014.01.07

    In my experience, most folks don't know what the firearms laws actually say or how they work (or don't...). The problem seems simple: you can't let criminals and crazy people run around loose and have access to guns. The solution is rather more complex. If you take the stance that these people have rights, then what about the rights of the sane and the law abiding? Don't we have a right to be protected from this group without having our own rights tampered with? In the end, most any legislation is only slightly effective, if at all, as this group tends to not give a hang about the law anyway.

  3. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.07

    There needs to be a Constitutional amendment stating that all candidates running for public office pass a literacy test. In the age of the computer and all its tools, there is no excuse for spelling errors by public servants.

    When I hear the phrase, "he's not conservative enough", it translates to "I'm a tea bagger, but too afraid to say it".

  4. mike from iowa 2014.01.08

    From the numbers of "accidental gun discharges" being reported around the country,maybe the Chinese were right when they said machines have souls. Maybe its the gun itself that causes severe mental distrubance. Besides,guns don't people like abortions don't kill people.

  5. Les 2014.01.08

    How deep are you willing to let me probe your life to assure you're not criminal or insane as in doing anything from working on my car to flying with me Cranky. At what point does sacrificing our freedoms for security do just the opposite of what you are wishing for?

Comments are closed.