Mercer says Stace Nelson is a victim of Tea Party manipulation, while Nelson exposes Rausch, Cronin, Hoffman, Turbiville, Wick, and Abdallah's use of the NRA to manipulate voters

Bob Mercer believes the the "mess" in regard to Stace Nelson was caused by Tea Party forces from outside the state of South Dakota:

The hard-right underground remains very active in South Dakota and has at least a half-d0zen to several dozen members of the Legislature. Whether they would describe themselves that way is unlikely, because it’s doubtful that many of them understand how they’re manipulated on a daily or near-daily basis during the legislative session. What’s not clear is whether some of these people have been duped into what they’re doing, without understanding the sources of the national money propping up their efforts, or if they are expressly their true thoughts as anti-government populists. Some of the people, who also include otherwise respected lobbyists and at least one statewide office holder, probably would be surprised to see how they have become woven into this same web. Nationally it’s been labeled as the Tea Party because there’s no good description for it. What’s happening in and around the Legislature goes beyond that label. A national agenda is being pressed upon South Dakota year after year, while identification and responses to our state’s real problems are too little addressed.

Yesterday during the House Judiciary committee hearing, Stace Nelson exposed the real manipulators using the outside help of the National Rifle Association to cover up their anti-gun votes from last year's session. Here is last year's HB1204:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit businesses and employers from establishing certain policies against the ability of an invitee or employee to store firearms and ammunition in a locked motor vehicle parked on the premises.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. No business or other public or private employer may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits any person from transporting or storing, on any area provided for invitee or employee parking or in any other public place, a firearm or ammunition if the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state statutes and rules and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.
    Section 2. Any person who is legally entitled to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but is denied the opportunity to do so by a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity or other public or private employer from violating section 1 of this Act. In any actions brought pursuant to this section, court costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff.
    Section 3. Any employee discharged by any business or other public or private employer for a violation of a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, if the employee was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle is entitled to the recovery of the following:

            (1)    Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of his or her termination from employment, or to an equivalent position;

            (2)    Reinstatement of the employee's full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

            (3)    Compensation for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination; and

            (4)    Payment of reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs incurred.
    Section 4. No business or other public or private employer may be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this Act including the theft of a firearm from an employee's or invitee's automobile, unless the business or other public or private employer solicited or procured the injurious actions.

 Here are the sponsors:

Representatives Russell, Brunner, Greenfield, Hansen (Jon), Hickey, Hubbel, Jensen, Kloucek, Kopp, Liss, Nelson (Stace), Olson (Betty), Schrempp, Stricherz, Venner, and Verchio and Senators Begalka, Frerichs, Holien, Kraus, Lederman, Rampelberg, and Sutton

It was sent to the 41st day (killed) in the House State Affairs 12 to 1 by the following legislators:

Lust, Cronin, Rausch, Wick, Abdallah, Moser, Hoffman, Turbiville, Hunhoff (Bernie), Gibson, Fargen, Blake

Here is the list of those who testified:

Proponents:    Representative Lance Russell
        Scott Parsons, self, Rapid City
        Zach Lautenschlager, South Dakota Gun Owners
        Dan Beaman, self, Selby
Opponents:    Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        Dianna Miller, SD Network Against Family Violence & Sexual Assault
        Yvonne Taylor, SD Municipal League

Yesterday, the House Judiciary heard HB1132:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit businesses and employers from establishing certain policies against the ability of an invitee or employee to store firearms and ammunition in a locked motor vehicle parked on the premises.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. No business or other public or private employer may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits any person from transporting or storing, on any area provided for invitee or employee parking, a firearm or ammunition if the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.
    Section 2. Any person who is legally entitled to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but is denied the opportunity to do so by a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity or other public or private employer from violating section 1 of this Act. In any action brought pursuant to this section, court costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff.
    Section 3. Any employee discharged by any business or other public or private employer for a violation of a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, if the employee was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle, is entitled to the recovery of the following:

            (1)    Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of the employee's termination from employment, or to an equivalent position;

            (2)    Reinstatement of the employee's full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

            (3)    Compensation for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination; and

            (4)    Payment of reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs incurred.
    Section 4. No business or other public or private employer may be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this Act, including the theft of a firearm from an employee's or invitee's automobile, unless the business or other public or private employer solicited or procured the injurious actions.

Looks exacly like last year's HB1204. And here is the list of sponsors for this year's try:

Representatives Rausch, Cronin, Gosch, Hoffman, Hunt, Wick, and Willadsen and Senators Olson (Russell), Brown, Gray, Rave, and Rhoden

Note that there lead sponsor Rausch plus Cronin, Wick and Hoffman were 4 of the 12 who voted against the legislation last year. Also note the absent of conservatives who sponsored the bill last year.

Here is the list of those who testified yesterday:

Presented by:    Senator Russell Olson
Proponents:    Brent Gardner, National Rifle Association
        Joe Kraljic, Rail Conference and Teamsters
        Representative Betty Olson
Opponents:    Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        David Owen, SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
        Dianna Miller, SD Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault
        Myron Rau, SD Trucking Association
        Dick Gregerson, Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce
        Julie Johnson, Absolutely Aberdeen
        Michele Brich, SD Innkeepers Association
        Lindsey Riter-Rapp, Sd Association Criminal Defense Lawyers

Normally the prime sponsor from the House would present the bill to the House committee hearing it, but yesterday the Senate prime Russell Olson presented. Wonder why? Around the time of the hearing I saw Rausch on third floor making what looked like small talk. I wonder if the small talk included Stace Nelson, who was still seated on the House Judiciary committee that was hearing the bill he was prime on?

And surpisingly the bill passed 10 to 2. The 10 voting Yeah were:

Abdallah, Boomgarden, Gibson, Hansen (Jon), Kopp, Nelson (Stace), Russell, Tornow, Turbiville, Gosch

Note that Abdallah and Turbiville were 2 of the 12 House State Affairs members who killed the very same legislation last year, and voted Yeah this year. So what caused the turnaround? Stace Nelson asked Senator Olson that very question, and Olson said he did not have a clue. No telling what would have happened if Rausch had presented the bill and Stace directed that question at him.

Well, we have to give Rep. Abdallah credit for being honest, so we have an idea on why these legislators had a complete flip-flop on this issue. He said last year the reason he voted no was because of the South Dakota Gun Owners promoting the legislation. This year he noted the presence of a "reputable gun lobby" (the NRA) and urged support for the bill. Again we have Abdallah caring less about the merits of legislation than carrying out revenge on those who dare expose his voting record to his constituents. How should citizens view representatives who think merits of a bill to their constituents are less important than their own pride? Clearly this mindset supports using bully tactics to shut down free speech of conservative limited government political activists. The premise that if the SDGO brings a bill, we will automatically kill, but if the NRA brings the very same bill, we will pass it, is not a civil approach to incivility. And incivility should not mean ones who expose others voting records.

Rep. Hoffman may be of like mind, as he said this last year:

In the House State Affairs we saw one bill HB1204 draw much attention. It would have restricted any business owner from designing policy against the ability of an employee from storing ammunition or weapons in a locked vehicle or in a locked trunk or glove box while on their personal property.  I consider this a personal property issue.  We drew a sharp line in the sand giving power to the owner of a private business in developing his or her own set of rules for engagement with that company or store.

What part of gun control does this HB 1204 fall into? If you feel the need to keep a weapon in your car then park on the street and walk into your business.  If the policy offends you than work for a company that does not have this in their rule making.  

A group called S.D. Gun Owners has sent some pretty vicious postcards around calling us anti-gun for killing this bill.  If the individual personal property rights mean nothing to you than you may agree; but to me balance is always a very good thing to have when setting policy into law.

 Shawn Lyons, of the SD Retailers Association, brought a SDGO postcard to the committee hearing as a complaint directed at the SDGO. Don't these people know that the NRA also sends out postcards? I received one in 2010 in regard to Rep. Lance Carson's "no" vote on this very same legislation.

The NRA will give more weight to legislators who sponsor successful legislation. It is clear that Rausch, Cronin, Hoffman, Turbiville, Wick, and Abdallah are using the NRA to counter the work of the SDGOs should they expose their past voting records during this year's election cycle. And they will certainly say the NRA has credibility and the SDGOs are the radicals when questioned by constituents. And I wonder how many NRA members will remember that the NRA threw conservatives under the Democrat's Disclose Act bus while they got an exception carved out for themselves? Some of us woke up to realize that yes we were manipulated into thinking that the NRA was simply a pro-freedom organization.

If Bob Mercer wants to report on outide interests with money manipulating people here in South Dakota, then he needs to report what I just researched. And the analysis does not end here. Stace Nelson is getting the same treatment as the SDGOs for being a part of the SDGOP Platform Voting Scorecard, that too is exposing the voting records of legislators. Here are how some of those in the House Chamber who have targeted Rep. Stace Nelson rate:

Lusk 40%

Rausch 35%

Moser 35%

Abdallah 29%

Turbiville 25%

 

Comments

[Nick Nemec]

Steve it's a well known fact that the Republican majority will vote against Democratic legislation and reintroduce and pass it the next year with all Republican sponsors. It looks as though they now pull the same stunt with Republican legislators they don't like.

[Steve Sibson]

Nick, it was great to see you yesterday. Us rural folk need to stick together, regardless of party.

[Sujit]

You let Alabama go borfee Mississippi?! Ughh as a resident of Alabama I am deeply depressed, all we have going for us is that were at least slightly better than our neighbor to the west.