The South Dakota legislature recently passed a bill which would have allowed most people to carry a concealed firearm without first obtaining a permit. To his credit, the state’s Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed this bill on Friday:
[T]he more he studied House Bill 1248, the more the governor had doubts. And by Friday, he had seen enough to veto the bill.
“When I looked at the bill, it really was a solution in search of a problem,” Daugaard said Friday. “The process for gaining a concealed carry permit is very simple and easily accomplished. I just don’t see this (bill) as something that would improve that by a great deal.” . . .
But the bill’s supporters say Daugaard’s veto was misguided.
“I believe that concealed weapons permit is a restriction on your constitutional right,” said Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, who sponsored HB1248. “Whether or not it’s a legitimate restriction – that can be debated. But it is a restriction. If you don’t have a good, rock-solid restriction to leave that restriction in place, why not remove that restriction?”
Rhoden, of course, is wrong about the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects most individuals right to own a firearm, it also concluded that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It then suggested that a long list of gun regulations are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment, including “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”