constitutional carry, Criminals don't obey the law, Gov. Kristi Noem, hearing protection, reciprocity, second amendment, South Dakota, suppressors
Constitutional carry is a concept that values the rights of individuals over the power of the state. It recognizes the primacy of the natural right to self-defense: men may carry the most effective means of self-defense without the permission of the state. South Dakota, the state of my birth, may soon become the next state to recognize the limits of its power. The Hill reports:
The South Dakota legislature has passed a bill allowing residents to carry concealed handguns without a permit, sending the measure to Gov. Kristi Noem (R) for a signature.
The state House passed the Senate legislation in a 47-23 vote on Tuesday to allow for the so-called constitutional carry, The Argus Leader reported.
Noem has vocalized support for the measure before but said she will consider the language in the bill before signing it into law.
‘We are pleased to see constitutional carry pass the state Senate and House of Representatives. Hopefully Gov. Noem will see the benefit in providing law-abiding South Dakotans with the ability to better defend themselves and their families,’ a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association said in a statement.
State Rep. Lee Qualm (R), a bill sponsor, told the newspaper that the measure was “simple” because it repealed the concealed carry permit requirements.
South Dakota’s new Republican attorney general, Jason Ravnsborg, has also said he supports the measure and isn’t concerned crime would rise in the state as a result of the law.
And why would it? Criminals don’t obey the law. They carry any weapons they please. They always have. The law abiding don’t commit crimes, with guns or otherwise. The only potential change in public safety is to enhance it, as more honest men and women will surely be armed, and criminals will have to assume that everyone they might accost may be armed.
Democrats and some law enforcement officials have reportedly opposed the bill, arguing that permits are a safety check to prevent gun violence or suicide.
This too is nonsense. Criminals don’t obey laws, even well-intentioned gun laws. The idea that requiring a permit for concealed carry could in any way reduce suicides has no basis in reality. Who, contemplating suicide, is going to think:“It would be wrong to kill myself without first getting a concealed carry permit. I’d better hop right on down to the courthouse”?
Meanwhile, members of the South Dakota’s Sheriff’s Association testified Monday that they preferred that the measure be limited to South Dakota residents, The Argus Leader reported.
This is a feature of many constitutional carry laws. This ensures the existence of a permit system so South Dakota residents can enjoy reciprocity with neighboring states, like Wyoming, which also has a constitutional carry law. National constitutional carry would render all permits a dead letter, but with Democrats in control of the House–actually a Republican controlled Congress didn’t do any better–that’s not going to happen.
This may be the wave of the future, but only in states that recognize any limit on their power over citizens. Another issue that involves state power over citizens is current federal regulation of suppressors, as Lidblog.com reports:
The ‘Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act of 2019,’ suppressor bill S 202, was re-introduced in the Senate on January 24 by a handful of Republican Senators. The bill seeks to remove arduous federal regulations on firearm suppressors. They are called silencers by some, but that’s a misnomer they don’t silence anything only make the sound more tolerable.
I produced a suppressor primer in October of 2017. There is no such thing as a “silencer.” Firearm suppressors are devices that reduce the report of firearms to levels that will not cause permanent hearing damage. The depiction of such devices in fiction—movie and otherwise—is almost always fanciful. A suppressed gunshot is clearly recognizable as a gunshot. It just doesn’t destroy the hearing of the shooter. As the law has stood since 1934, they are treated exactly like automatic weapons:
According to the National Firearms Act, the regulations as they stand now require:
‘A petition must be submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with two copies of ATF Form 4, TF Form 5330.20 filled out for certification from a local chief law enforcement officer. It additionally includes obtaining two copies of fingerprints and mailing them all in with a $200 check. The approved form then will not come back for another nine to 12 months.’
There are other requirements as well. Like automatic arms, one can’t take a suppressor out of state without prior written authorization from the federal government.
The suppressor bill, S 202 was introduced by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), and Mike Crapo (R-ID), seeks to rescind those crazy requirements and treat suppressors as a regular accessory. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance but has little chance of getting the sixty votes necessary to pass the Senate as Democrats are not big believers in the 2nd Amendment.
The same measure was introduced during the first two years of the Trump Administration when Republicans controlled the Congress, but Then Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would never let the measure come up for a vote, ostensibly saving it for the “right time.”
Apparently, the “right time” is now, when Democrats control the House and there is no chance this, or any other pro-liberty/gun measure, will pass. Despite there being no public safety downside to this legislation, and a substantial public health benefit, Democrats will oppose it because they reflexively oppose anything that would fully vindicate the Second Amendment, and many delight in harming God and gun clinging deplorables in every way possible.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, certainly on the federal level.
Pre-Posting Update: SD Governor Kristi Noem has signed the constitutional carry legislation into law, making SD the 14th Constitutional Carry State.
I think that you aren’t correct about the interstate transport of suppressors. According to what it says on the ATF form 5320.20, you have to get permission for a short barrel rifle, a short barrel shotgun, or a machine gun.
It doesn’t seem to pertain to AOWs or suppressors.
Here’s what the ATF says on the matter:
Given that you’re likely to encounter police, TSA screeners, and airline employees who are not familiar with the text of the NFA, it’s likely not a bad idea to have an approved 5320 for any NFA item that you wish to travel between states with.
Mike McDaniel said:
You’re quite right in pointing out the apparent letter of the law, which does seem to exclude suppressors, however, it has been my long experience that interpretation varies a great deal, from administration to administration and from officer to officer. There are places in America–New York City and State, for example, where formalities like government paperwork and being entirely in compliance with federal law matter not at all. They’ll arrest you and make you prove yourself innocent.
As you say, it’s a good idea to have all the paperwork possible just in case, but even that may be of little help. Thanks for your comment!
Whoa, whoa — Mike! What are you doing?!? Don’t you know the left deals in “feelings”? And here you come with all this logic.
James W Crawford said:
I notice that South Dakota is challenging Alaska for the title of “THE COLDEST STATE WITH THE HOTTEST GOVERNOR.” (Sarah Palin’s brother Chuck Jr was actually selling tee shirts.) Governor Noem benefits from being a decade younger than Governor Palin but its is still a close contest. I believe that Alaska is colder than South Dakota.
James W Crawford said:
If you want quiet, try shooting .22 shorts out of a bolt action rifle. Quiter than an air rifle.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear James W Crawford: