SD approved concealed carry without any permit

[JRP]

The great state of South Dakota just approved & signed SB47 which eliminates the need for a concealed carry permit within the state. The effective date is 7/1/2019 and this applies to those over 18 who are legally allowed to own a firearm. I think we're now up to 14 states that have approved some type of "constitutional carry" law.

This bill keeps in place the option to apply for a SD concealed carry permit under the same existing requirements, for those who want one for its reciprocity in other states. 

This bill applies to both residents & non-residents within the state of SD. However, there is an alternate bill still sitting in the legislature that would only apply this to SD residents. Some are pushing for this alternate to be passed as a replacement for SB47, so stay tuned.

[markandkim]

I can't wait to be a resident.

Freedom!

[Carlos]

Congrats to the residents of SD.  We got Constitutional carry eight years ago, and predictably, crime is down and more criminals are being stopped by lawful people.  We also have open carry, and you can carry in a vehicle (always had the those two).  There's also a CCW permit for those who want reciprocity.

 

[NDBirdman]

ND also just passed this, but a person needs to read up on the restrictions.  The one that bugs me, if the sun is down, you can't carry concealed.  Makes no sense, I hope it got changed, I have not look lately.

[Carlos]

There's no such restriction, but it's otherwise a bit restrictive, such as applying only to long-term residents.

 

https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/public-safety/constitutional-concealed-carry

 

Requirements

(effective August 1, 2017)

Following are the eligibility requirements for an individual to carry concealed in North Dakota without a concealed weapon license:

• Must be at least 18 years of age.
  • Must be 21 to purchase a handgun, but may possess at 18 in North Dakota provided individual is legally able to possess a firearm under the law.
• Must be a resident of North Dakota for 1 year as evidenced by ND drivers license or ND ID card.
• Not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm.
  • Examples of prohibitions from possession of a firearm:*
    • Felony conviction
    • Conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (disorderly conduct)
    • Misdemeanor conviction involving violence with the use of a weapon
    • User of drugs or addicted to drugs
    • Dishonorable discharge from the military
    • Renounced US citizenship/Illegal alien
    • Protection order against you
    • Fugitive from justice
    • Right to possess a firearm removed by the courts
    • Right to possess a firearm removed by a mental health or treatment issue
• ND drivers license or ND ID card must be carried (or the individual must have a digital image of the license).
• If carrying under this provision, the individual MUST inform law enforcement that they are in possession of the firearm upon any in-person contact by a law enforcement officer.
• Restrictions on location (places) that a firearm may be possessed or carried by law (N.D.C.C. Title 62.1) still apply.

[NDBirdman]

Cool, must have read it wrong when it passed.  Thanks for looking it up!

[Carlos]

28% of states now have some form of real liberty when it comes to defensive weapons.  How soon until only places like CA, NY, MA, etc are left?

[pjstough]

1 minute ago, Carlos said:

28% of states now have some form of real liberty when it comes to defensive weapons.  How soon until only places like CA, NY, MA, etc are left?

What is the difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive one?

By the way we wont have real liberty until I can open carry an M-60 machine gun or any other weapon I choose.

[Carlos]

I don't know if you're trolling, or what?

 

[pjstough]

12 minutes ago, Carlos said:

I don't know if you're trolling, or what?

 

Just a different perspective.

[Carlos]

I mean on the offensive/defensive question, since it seems obvious.

You can openly carry an M60 in my state, no idea on others.  Now, when we can do so without a tax stamp, that's even better.

 

[pjstough]

1 minute ago, Carlos said:

I mean on the offensive/defensive question, since it seems obvious.

You can openly carry an M60 in my state, no idea on others.  Now, when we can do so without a tax stamp, that's even better.

 

The difference between and offensive and defensive weapon in not obvious to me.

 

[JRP]

Many well meaning threads about firearm topics get deleted from this forum when the discussion gets off track. 

This thread was to simply spread the word on a significant change within SD that effects many RV'ers in their home state or a state they frequently visit.

 Please click on the "Guidlines" tab at the top of the forum to review this forum's rules if you're not familiar with them. 

This is not directed at anyone specific or implying anyone violated the guidelines,  just trying to keep this announcement from being deleted.

[markandkim]

59 minutes ago, pjstough said:

What is the difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive one?

By the way we wont have real liberty until I can open carry an M-60 machine gun or any other weapon I choose.

Please stop.

Start your own thread. 

[Kirk W]

19 hours ago, pjstough said:

The difference between and offensive and defensive weapon in not obvious to me.

 

Quote

Rule#6: No Trolling! Do not start topics or discussions in order to cause conflict on the forum.

 

 

[pjstough]

7 hours ago, Kirk W said:

 

I dont see how asking for an explanation could be construed as trolling, unless everyone knows that there is no difference.

[Carlos]

Who claimed that there was?

 

[pjstough]

12 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Who claimed that there was?

 

You did.  " 28% of states now have some form of real liberty when it comes to defensive weapons.  "

[remoandiris]

On 2/1/2019 at 1:40 PM, pjstough said:

The difference between and offensive and defensive weapon in not obvious to me.

 

There is NO difference in the weapon.  There IS a difference in how that weapon is USED.  

As with virtually ANYTHING else created by man, it is how the item is USED that needs to be controlled, NOT the item itself.  

And, if criminals obeyed laws, they would NOT be criminals.

[pjstough]

Just now, remoandiris said:

There is NO difference in the weapon.  There IS a difference in how that weapon is USED.  

As with virtually ANYTHING else created by man, it is how the item is USED that needs to be controlled, NOT the item itself.  

And, if criminals obeyed laws, they would NOT be criminals.

That is my understanding as well, and that is why I was surprised at the use of the term "defensive" weapon, as if the weapon was made so that it could only be used to defend oneself or others.

[remoandiris]

Meh.  Actually, I think you were just looking for an argument.  I have read your anti-gun comments on other threads, so I know where you stand.

Have a good day.  I'm out.

[Big5er]

Yeah, I'm with Remo on this one. You are simply looking to argue, and in my opinion you choose a rather silly platform. Do you really think that states that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns are advocating their use "offensively"? 

""Here's your handgun permit. Now go rape, rob and pillage."
 

3 hours ago, pjstough said:

as if the weapon was made so that it could only be used to defend oneself or others.

REALLY?? That is probably one of the silliest things I have ever read hear. If you were 12 I might understand how you might think that but you are obviously an adult so we can rule out a childish lack of comprehension for your crazy argument. I suppose you have some other excuse, other than just picking fights over dumb stuff? 

Maybe a moderator will come along and delete the silly troll comments. Then they could delete mine, Remo's and a few others where we fed the troll thus leading this conversation back to original intent??

[pjstough]

53 minutes ago, Big5er said:

Yeah, I'm with Remo on this one. You are simply looking to argue, and in my opinion you choose a rather silly platform. Do you really think that states that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns are advocating their use "offensively"? 

""Here's your handgun permit. Now go rape, rob and pillage."
 

REALLY?? That is probably one of the silliest things I have ever read hear. If you were 12 I might understand how you might think that but you are obviously an adult so we can rule out a childish lack of comprehension for your crazy argument. I suppose you have some other excuse, other than just picking fights over dumb stuff? 

Maybe a moderator will come along and delete the silly troll comments. Then they could delete mine, Remo's and a few others where we fed the troll thus leading this conversation back to original intent??

The silliest post in this thread was when Carlos said that people could carry "defensive" weapons.  I dont see this as picking a fight.  It is simply pointing out the silliness of saying there is such things as a weapon that can only used defensively.  He should have simply said "weapon" without any modifiers.

[Dollytrolley]

5 hours ago, pjstough said:

That is my understanding as well, and that is why I was surprised at the use of the term "defensive" weapon, as if the weapon was made so that it could only be used to defend oneself or others.

 

2 hours ago, Big5er said:

Yeah, I'm with Remo on this one. You are simply looking to argue, and in my opinion you choose a rather silly platform. Do you really think that states that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns are advocating their use "offensively"? 

""Here's your handgun permit. Now go rape, rob and pillage."
 

REALLY?? That is probably one of the silliest things I have ever read hear. If you were 12 I might understand how you might think that but you are obviously an adult so we can rule out a childish lack of comprehension for your crazy argument. I suppose you have some other excuse, other than just picking fights over dumb stuff? 

Maybe a moderator will come along and delete the silly troll comments. Then they could delete mine, Remo's and a few others where we fed the troll thus leading this conversation back to original intent??

 

1 hour ago, pjstough said:

The silliest post in this thread was when Carlos said that people could carry "defensive" weapons.  I dont see this as picking a fight.  It is simply pointing out the silliness of saying there is such things as a weapon that can only used defensively.  He should have simply said "weapon" without any modifiers.

Children ....... children......go stand in your corners.......let Dolly make everyone happy again........

So a few weeks ago......we were horse camping out in no-mans-land and a scumbag yahoo tried to get a bit ........aggressive and threatening toward me at camp.....so......not having any shooting-iron handy is simply picked up my trusty Manure-Pitchfork and gave it a .........DEFENSIVE-TWIRL...........guess what??.........yep the yahoo froze-mid-stride.............that is how DEFENSE is supposed to work.......

Now pay attention.......ya see IF..........IF........the Scumbag Yahoo had taken TWO step more toward me then it was HIGHLY LIKELY that the old Manure Pitchfork would be a VERY OFFENSIVE Weapon indeed..........A Pitchfork with fresh manure on the tines is VERY OFFENSIVE........

Now as I recall Phil has mentioned that packs "heat" often while he is on the "job" , but most days he tends to task the heat in a defensive manner ........now a couple times in the past I have made Phil a bit grumpy and he might have had a few ......OFFENSIVE ponderings about me but so far he has remained restrained...........NOW, while I have never met Phil face to face, I have met a few chaps like him, and trust me, you get a bit too offensive and I'll bet Phil can get darn OFFENSIVE right back in return.........

Now I have been shot at and hit, so I am a expert on being on the wrong end of OFFENSIVE, but the guy was a very poor shot so mostly scared me into deep defense.

So carry a trusty Manure Fork (Used) and it's very easy to have both Defense or Offense or...........you can also pitch manure..... so.... with that explanation I deem this subject ready for the .......manure pile

 

Drive on.......(some items are offensive.....some are defensive....and some is just ......manure)

 

 

[Big5er]

4 hours ago, pjstough said:

I dont see this as picking a fight.  It is simply pointing out the silliness of saying there is such things as a weapon that can only used defensively.  He should have simply said "weapon" without any modifiers.

He never said the weapon could ONLY be used defensively. That was how you chose to interpret it. What he said was that 28% of the states had some form of liberty when it came to carrying weapons for defense. As I pointed out earlier, and you chose to ignore, there is no state that authorizes people to carry weapons for an offensive purpose. You can continue your childish replies, everyone in this thread has seen them for what they are.