Citizens of South Dakota May No Longer Need A Permit To Carry Concealed Handguns

Gun owners in South Dakota are excited that legislation might finally pass in South Dakota which would make it legal to carry concealed handguns without a permit. GOP Governor-elect Kristi Noem supported this measure throughout her recent campaign and with a Republican-controlled state Senate and House, a bill might just pass next year.


Similar legislation introduced by then-state Representative Lynne DiSanto (currently a state Senator-elect) was vetoed by retiring Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard who believes the state’s current gun laws are already reasonable.

DiSanto expressed confidence that a permitless concealed carry bill will pass in the upcoming session. She said “there are a lot of Republicans that are very excited to have a conservative governor. I think under a new governor it’s very likely to pass.” Fox News reports:

Right now, it’s a misdemeanor for someone to carry a concealed pistol or to have one concealed in a vehicle without a permit. At the end of October, there were nearly 108,000 pistol permits in South Dakota, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Daugaard vetoed DiSanto’s proposal in 2017 and also rejected a similar measure in 2012; constitutional carry legislation failed during the 2018 session after he issued a veto threat. Bill supporters have argued that getting a concealed pistol permit can be burdensome.

Backers are likely to get a boost from Noem, who triumphed over Democratic state Sen. Billie Sutton in the Nov. 6 election. Noem in January urged passage of a permitless carry bill.

At the time Noem didn’t endorse a specific plan, though her campaign said she supported the policy “in principle.” Transition team spokeswoman Kristin Wileman said in a statement this week that Noem won’t commit to legislation until she can review its text, but said she’s a strong 2nd Amendment supporter and thinks provisions like constitutional carry can “protect and even strengthen this right for South Dakotans.”

“The governor-elect will work to find a way that law enforcement and gun-right proponents can come together around a solution,” Wileman said.

Staci Ackerman, executive director of the South Dakota Sheriffs’ Assn., said the group hasn’t discussed 2019 legislation yet. But she said the organization supported a bill in the 2018 session that allowed permitless carry for state residents with a South Dakota driver’s license or identification card; the measure didn’t advance out of the Senate.


If this legislation passes, South Dakota will join a growing list of states that allow “permitless carry,” also known as “constitutional carry.”

As of 23 March 2017, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (residents only; concealed carry only), Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only) do not require a permit to carry a loaded concealed firearm for any person of age who is not prohibited from owning a firearm…All aforementioned jurisdictions do not require a permit to openly carry either except for North Dakota and certain localities in Missouri.

Some still refer to “permitless carry” or “constitutional carry” as “Vermont carry.” Considering the high number of SJWs residing in Vermont, it’s surprising the state has been able to maintain the lenient “constitutional carry” laws that have been in place since the state was formed. Interestingly:

For many decades, the only state to allow “constitutional carry” of a handgun (i.e. without any government permit) was Vermont. From the formation of the 13 original states, “constitutional carry” was the law in all states until the 19th century. By the 20th century, all states except Vermont had enacted concealed carry bans, with the exemption in most states for those citizens with a permit. Due to wording in its state constitution and decisions made by the state courts, Vermont has never been able to have a restriction on the method of how one could carry a firearm, and thus, in this regard, Vermont stood entirely separate from the rest of the United States for quite some time.


At a time when public shootings have become a part of American life, it’s essential that citizens be allowed to defend themselves and others. The left is determined to take away our second amendment rights. In the aftermath of every shooting, they become more aggressive in their efforts to take away our guns. How do they keep missing the obvious fact that the carnage at any one of these shootings would have been minimized if only one person present had a weapon?  Huzzah South Dakota!


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos