From an e-mail:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hey All,
Just had a very interesting telephone conversation with Capt. Rau of the
South Dakota Highway Patrol. I'll be traveling up to Sturgis, SD on my
Harley in a few days, so I wanted to check with the SDHP about their view
of firearm transportation. You see, SD has a law that forbids the carrying
of any firearm on a motorcycle or snowmobile, unless said firearm is
"completely unloaded and within a carrying case which encloses the entire
firearm." (SDS#32-20-6.6).
At first the good Captain tried to tell me that one could not carry a
firearm on a motorcycle under any circumstances. Thinking it would perhaps
be best not to mention that I was looking at the applicable statute on the
state web site as we spoke, I asked him "What about if it's unloaded and
cased?". First he said "No, can't do it", then he said "Let me read you the
law". As he read the law, with me following along word for word on the web
site, he got to the aforementioned unloaded and cased part. Then he says "I
guess it's technically legal if you had it in a locked case, but how could
you do that on a motorcycle?" Apparently the good Captain has never done
any long distance motorcycle touring, despite his claim that he had "been
to Sturgis on a Harley many times", or he would know that a motorcycle is
quite capable of carrying luggage, especially since the invention of that
modern miracle of science, the bungee cord. So I explained to him that it
would be easy enough to keep a cased firearm with the rest of one's
luggage, if one so desired.
This brought up the next obvious question, at least if you're an anti-gun
liberal. And that was "What do you need to bring a gun here for anyway?". I
told him that I'd be making a long journey through Wyoming, where it's
perfectly legal for me to carry a gun. I mentioned that in Wyoming there
are long stretches of absolutely nothing, where if someone were to break
down, they could be stuck for a long while, at the mercy of any predator
that happened along, whether four or two legged. So I thought it prudent to
carry a gun for my personal protection on my long journey to and from SD.
But of course, wanting to stay within the law, I wanted to make sure that
the gun was transported legally once I crossed the SD state line, since
that state forbade me from carrying a gun without a permit, which it only
issues to residents. The conversation went steeply downhill from there.
First I got the "If you think you need a gun to protect yourself when you
travel, then you should stay home" mantra. After all, "nobody should need a
gun to protect themselves". When I asked why he carried a gun as a police
officer, he replied that he was "authorized by the state to do so in the
line of duty, after extensive training and psychological screening", and
that "ordinary citizens carrying guns around only increase the danger to
the police and to other citizens". I asked why he supposed the state had
him carry a gun to do his duty, instead of, say, a baseball bat. He replied
that he carried a gun "to protect other people, not to protect myself" and
"I never carry a gun off duty". I told him that though I questioned the
sanity of leaving his gun at home when off duty, I preferred at the moment
to discuss the rationale he was proposing. Why, I asked, did he suppose
that the state gave him a gun to protect those other people with, once
again as opposed to a bat or a knife? "Because we frequently get called
into situations where someone has a gun", he replied. Ah, I say, so when
someone is committing a crime with a gun, people should call someone else
with a gun to put a stop to it, right? "Right" he says. Because anything
less would be insufficient to deal with the situation, right? "Right" he
says. So wouldn't it be better if the victim just had his/her own gun in
the first place, so as to deal with the threat? "No, that would just make
matters worse. Ordinary citizens aren't trained to use firearms properly,
we are."
At this point I mentioned that I had taken the civilian equivalent of
police firearms training, and had qualified with a handgun on the POST test
(didn't mention my score, didn't want to embarrass him), so, by his
standards, he should have no problem with someone like me carrying a gun,
right? Wrong! "How are we supposed to know that? When we get there, you're
just another guy with a gun that we have to worry about." Notice the sudden
dodge into a different argument. "Besides, most people don't take any real
training". I mentioned that most people that I knew did, he replied "So
everyone who carries a gun in Wyoming takes police training?" Note the
exaggeration of my statement, a typical verbal dodge to discredit an
argument one has no real answer to. Note also the assumption that I was
from WY, which I never said. Only said I'd be traveling through WY. These
liberals just love to assume ...
My response was that police style firearms training is readily available to
the citizens of most states out here in the west, and that no, I didn't
expect that most people took all the same training as the police. I pointed
out that the firearms training is all that would be needed, and that the
multitude of other training they get on laws and legal procedures, arrest
tactics, and so on, would be unnecessary for the majority of folks. His
response was "So then you don't need to know the laws governing firearms
use and deadly force? Just going and putting a couple of rounds on target
is enough? What about shoot-no shoot scenarios?" I mentioned at this point
that I had done the shoot-no shoot drills, and that firearms training
covered deadly force laws, etc., but I could see the conversation was going
nowhere, so I decided to wrap it up.
I told him it was obvious we had philosophical differences that were not
likely to be ironed out during the course of this phone call, and that I
just wanted to be sure that I was obeying SD law when I entered their
jurisdiction with a firearm. He said "Well, as long as you keep it in a
locked case you'll be legal, but I hardly see the point in bringing it here
if you have to keep it locked up the whole time. Won't be much protection
for you if it's locked in a case. And if you take it out you'll be
arrested." I mentioned once again that I would be perfectly legal all the
way there and back, and that just because SD denied me my right to defend
myself didn't mean that I should give it up altogether. He says "We don't
deny you the right to defend yourself!". I say "Just with a firearm,
right?". He responds "Just with a firearm". I say "And this makes sense to
you?". He replies "It makes perfect sense to me!"
I closed with this. "Tell me something. What makes you think that someone
like me, who's bending over backward to obey your state's laws, would be a
danger to you just because I was carrying a firearm?" His response was "I
don't know you from adam. As far as I'm concerned you're just one more gun
I have to deal with". With that I bid him farewell.
I apologize to all for the length of this. I left out a lot of the details,
and only hit on the high points of his little anti-gun diatribe, and it
still turned out to be a long one. I just thought some of you folks might
like to know what sort of closed minded idiots are in positions of power
that we'll need to deal with anytime we try to exercise our rights. It
seems some of the folks around these parts lately just don't understand
what we're up against.
If any other concerned "bikers" out there wish to call and inquire about
the firearms laws in SD, the SDHP phone number is ...
(605) 773-3105
[/quote]
The SD Constitution:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SOUTH DAKOTA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the
state shall not be denied." Article VI, Section 24.
POSSESSION
No state permit is required to possess a shotgun, rifle or handgun.
CARRYING
No person shall carry a pistol concealed in any vehicle or concealed on or
about his person, without a license to carry. The issuing authority for a
permit to carry is the chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of
a county.
The permit shall be issued if the applicant is at least 18, has not been
convicted of a felony or crime of violence, is not a habitual drunkard or
drug user, has no history of repeated acts of violence, and is not
currently adjudged mentally incompetent or has not been found in the
previous 10 years to be mentally ill. A temporary permit to carry shall be
issued within 5 days of application to a person who satisfies the above
standards. The original copy of an application for a permit shall serve as
the temporary permit until the permit is issued. All permit denials may be
appealed to the circuit court.
The permit is valid for 4 years. The fee for a permit to carry is $6.00.
A permit is not required to carry an unloaded handgun if it is carried in
the trunk or other closed compartment of a vehicle or if it is in a closed
container which is too large to be effectively concealed on the person or
within his clothing. This container may be carried in a vehicle or in any
other manner.
No local government may enact a law pertaining to the possession,
transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms and ammunition.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hey All,
Just had a very interesting telephone conversation with Capt. Rau of the
South Dakota Highway Patrol. I'll be traveling up to Sturgis, SD on my
Harley in a few days, so I wanted to check with the SDHP about their view
of firearm transportation. You see, SD has a law that forbids the carrying
of any firearm on a motorcycle or snowmobile, unless said firearm is
"completely unloaded and within a carrying case which encloses the entire
firearm." (SDS#32-20-6.6).
At first the good Captain tried to tell me that one could not carry a
firearm on a motorcycle under any circumstances. Thinking it would perhaps
be best not to mention that I was looking at the applicable statute on the
state web site as we spoke, I asked him "What about if it's unloaded and
cased?". First he said "No, can't do it", then he said "Let me read you the
law". As he read the law, with me following along word for word on the web
site, he got to the aforementioned unloaded and cased part. Then he says "I
guess it's technically legal if you had it in a locked case, but how could
you do that on a motorcycle?" Apparently the good Captain has never done
any long distance motorcycle touring, despite his claim that he had "been
to Sturgis on a Harley many times", or he would know that a motorcycle is
quite capable of carrying luggage, especially since the invention of that
modern miracle of science, the bungee cord. So I explained to him that it
would be easy enough to keep a cased firearm with the rest of one's
luggage, if one so desired.
This brought up the next obvious question, at least if you're an anti-gun
liberal. And that was "What do you need to bring a gun here for anyway?". I
told him that I'd be making a long journey through Wyoming, where it's
perfectly legal for me to carry a gun. I mentioned that in Wyoming there
are long stretches of absolutely nothing, where if someone were to break
down, they could be stuck for a long while, at the mercy of any predator
that happened along, whether four or two legged. So I thought it prudent to
carry a gun for my personal protection on my long journey to and from SD.
But of course, wanting to stay within the law, I wanted to make sure that
the gun was transported legally once I crossed the SD state line, since
that state forbade me from carrying a gun without a permit, which it only
issues to residents. The conversation went steeply downhill from there.
First I got the "If you think you need a gun to protect yourself when you
travel, then you should stay home" mantra. After all, "nobody should need a
gun to protect themselves". When I asked why he carried a gun as a police
officer, he replied that he was "authorized by the state to do so in the
line of duty, after extensive training and psychological screening", and
that "ordinary citizens carrying guns around only increase the danger to
the police and to other citizens". I asked why he supposed the state had
him carry a gun to do his duty, instead of, say, a baseball bat. He replied
that he carried a gun "to protect other people, not to protect myself" and
"I never carry a gun off duty". I told him that though I questioned the
sanity of leaving his gun at home when off duty, I preferred at the moment
to discuss the rationale he was proposing. Why, I asked, did he suppose
that the state gave him a gun to protect those other people with, once
again as opposed to a bat or a knife? "Because we frequently get called
into situations where someone has a gun", he replied. Ah, I say, so when
someone is committing a crime with a gun, people should call someone else
with a gun to put a stop to it, right? "Right" he says. Because anything
less would be insufficient to deal with the situation, right? "Right" he
says. So wouldn't it be better if the victim just had his/her own gun in
the first place, so as to deal with the threat? "No, that would just make
matters worse. Ordinary citizens aren't trained to use firearms properly,
we are."
At this point I mentioned that I had taken the civilian equivalent of
police firearms training, and had qualified with a handgun on the POST test
(didn't mention my score, didn't want to embarrass him), so, by his
standards, he should have no problem with someone like me carrying a gun,
right? Wrong! "How are we supposed to know that? When we get there, you're
just another guy with a gun that we have to worry about." Notice the sudden
dodge into a different argument. "Besides, most people don't take any real
training". I mentioned that most people that I knew did, he replied "So
everyone who carries a gun in Wyoming takes police training?" Note the
exaggeration of my statement, a typical verbal dodge to discredit an
argument one has no real answer to. Note also the assumption that I was
from WY, which I never said. Only said I'd be traveling through WY. These
liberals just love to assume ...
My response was that police style firearms training is readily available to
the citizens of most states out here in the west, and that no, I didn't
expect that most people took all the same training as the police. I pointed
out that the firearms training is all that would be needed, and that the
multitude of other training they get on laws and legal procedures, arrest
tactics, and so on, would be unnecessary for the majority of folks. His
response was "So then you don't need to know the laws governing firearms
use and deadly force? Just going and putting a couple of rounds on target
is enough? What about shoot-no shoot scenarios?" I mentioned at this point
that I had done the shoot-no shoot drills, and that firearms training
covered deadly force laws, etc., but I could see the conversation was going
nowhere, so I decided to wrap it up.
I told him it was obvious we had philosophical differences that were not
likely to be ironed out during the course of this phone call, and that I
just wanted to be sure that I was obeying SD law when I entered their
jurisdiction with a firearm. He said "Well, as long as you keep it in a
locked case you'll be legal, but I hardly see the point in bringing it here
if you have to keep it locked up the whole time. Won't be much protection
for you if it's locked in a case. And if you take it out you'll be
arrested." I mentioned once again that I would be perfectly legal all the
way there and back, and that just because SD denied me my right to defend
myself didn't mean that I should give it up altogether. He says "We don't
deny you the right to defend yourself!". I say "Just with a firearm,
right?". He responds "Just with a firearm". I say "And this makes sense to
you?". He replies "It makes perfect sense to me!"
I closed with this. "Tell me something. What makes you think that someone
like me, who's bending over backward to obey your state's laws, would be a
danger to you just because I was carrying a firearm?" His response was "I
don't know you from adam. As far as I'm concerned you're just one more gun
I have to deal with". With that I bid him farewell.
I apologize to all for the length of this. I left out a lot of the details,
and only hit on the high points of his little anti-gun diatribe, and it
still turned out to be a long one. I just thought some of you folks might
like to know what sort of closed minded idiots are in positions of power
that we'll need to deal with anytime we try to exercise our rights. It
seems some of the folks around these parts lately just don't understand
what we're up against.
If any other concerned "bikers" out there wish to call and inquire about
the firearms laws in SD, the SDHP phone number is ...
(605) 773-3105
[/quote]
The SD Constitution:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SOUTH DAKOTA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the
state shall not be denied." Article VI, Section 24.
POSSESSION
No state permit is required to possess a shotgun, rifle or handgun.
CARRYING
No person shall carry a pistol concealed in any vehicle or concealed on or
about his person, without a license to carry. The issuing authority for a
permit to carry is the chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of
a county.
The permit shall be issued if the applicant is at least 18, has not been
convicted of a felony or crime of violence, is not a habitual drunkard or
drug user, has no history of repeated acts of violence, and is not
currently adjudged mentally incompetent or has not been found in the
previous 10 years to be mentally ill. A temporary permit to carry shall be
issued within 5 days of application to a person who satisfies the above
standards. The original copy of an application for a permit shall serve as
the temporary permit until the permit is issued. All permit denials may be
appealed to the circuit court.
The permit is valid for 4 years. The fee for a permit to carry is $6.00.
A permit is not required to carry an unloaded handgun if it is carried in
the trunk or other closed compartment of a vehicle or if it is in a closed
container which is too large to be effectively concealed on the person or
within his clothing. This container may be carried in a vehicle or in any
other manner.
No local government may enact a law pertaining to the possession,
transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms and ammunition.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
), and I've had a gun in my bag. I never even considered that SD would be an unfriendly state to gun owners. 
.
.