Pat Powers criticizes the South Dakota Gun Owners' for holding an elected official accountable to his constituents for not upholding his oath of office regarding constitutional carry:
The Gun Owners group is going after long-time Sheriff Mike Leidholt, and leafletting homes in the Pierre area with a message that they call his office, and demand that he apologize for his position.
It’s a dumb move, as I don’t think Mike has been challenged for the last few elections, so they’re not going to pressure him that way. And when I was in the Secretary of State’s office way back when, Leidholt was actually at the forefront of working to improve South Dakota’s archaic pistol permitting system as part of the Sheriff’s group.
I’ll be specific on how this will work.
For every 10 people in Hughes County who support Constitutional Carry:
3 people will call Sheriff Mike.
7 people will change their mind because they trust Sheriff Mike’s judgement.
So we should not be surprised the a liberal Republicans would use a tactic from their corrupt crony capitalism that prevents those elected officials that are "popular" from any kind of accountability for their actions during the legislative process in Pierre.
Here is Cory Heidelberger's reaction:
The SDGOP spin blog and I agree that the gun radicals who lobby under the banner “South Dakota Gun Owners” go too far with their propaganda flyers against any and all perceived enemies of their guns-everywhere policies. Spinster Powers features SDGO’s latest leaflet littering Pierre homes telling citizens that Sheriff Mike Leidholt is anti-gun, just because he testified against House Bill 1072, the plan on the Governor’s desk to repeal the requirement to get a permit to carry a concealed pistol.
The Orange flyer also suggests that Sheriff Leidholt slaps women:
Never mind that, as a law-enforcement expert, Sheriff Leidholt understands better than anyone the implications of deregulating concealed weapons. Never mind that there’s a good argument that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to sneak around with a firearm hidden in your pants. Oppose gun absolutism (remember, SDGO calls itself “South Dakota’s only no-compromise gun rights organization,” which means they can justify any tactics in the cause they imagine to be inviolable), and SDGO will craft its words to tell your neighbors that you “want to slap a woman….”
First has not standing to go after the SDGO how it "will craft its words" after his post last week that said Representative Noem got naked during a committee hearing. Second, he joins in with Pat Powers' cronyism by calling the sheriff "a law-enforcement expert". And third, his link regarding the Constitution is from the most liberal court in the United States:
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public, in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show "good cause," such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.
And Cory's link also said:
Critics have long charged that the 9th Circuit has a history of liberal-leaning decisions. Thursday's ruling overturns a 2014 ruling by a smaller panel, and resulted from a case in which a sheriff in San Diego County required applicants to show supporting documents, such as restraining orders against attackers, in order to get a permit.
Celebrities who fear for their safety and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash were often given permits.
Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, dissenting in Thursday's ruling, said the restrictions were tantamount to an infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
“In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Callahan wrote.
“Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent,” Callahan said.
Gun rights groups blasted the decision.
So Cory's position is based on liberal California, but this is what elected officials in South Dakota is suppose to support if they are serious about upholding their oath of office:
Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution of South Dakota provides that “[t]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.”
And our liberal tax and spend governor promises to veto the legislation:
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard says he will again reject permitless carry legislation if it reaches his desk as a House bill to bring constitutional carry to the state is set for hearings this week.
Daugaard, who shot down similar legislation before, feels HB 1072 is bad legislation that is not needed due to the what he describes as the state’s minimal and effective permitting system.
“House Bill 1072 would eliminate the permit requirement in order to carry a concealed weapon,” wrote Daugaard in an op-ed published by the Rapid City Journal. “Under this bill, the vetting process would be removed. Individuals with a proven history of violence or substance abuse and those who have been identified as a danger to the public or to themselves could not be restricted from carrying a firearm.”
The vetting process doesn't stop criminals from including guns with their criminal activities. South Dakota's current concealed carry laws has not prevented law enforcement from being more at risk today than they ever had in the past, because the current conceal carry law is not keeping guns out of the hands of "[i]ndividuals with a proven history of violence or substance abuse :
The 'war on drugs' is a phrase coined back in the early 1970's. Unfortunately, that battle continues today and it's become an even a bigger and more violent fight.
Meth, opiods and heroin; three drugs which law enforcement officials say have seen a dramatic increase in use over the last few years.
Governor Dennis Daugaard even went so far as to call it an "epidemic" in South Dakota.
Yet Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead says the pictures of drug busts like these, which are provided to the media, don't tell the whole story.
"I've never been more concerned for the safety of my deputies and the officers on the drug task force than I am today," Milstead said.
He's referring to a growing number of people involved in the drug scene who are carrying guns. In all of his years in law enforcement, Milstead has never seen it this bad.
How many of those people have concealed carry permits? Those who trust Sherrif Liedholt's judgment, including Cory Heidelberger, need to think again. Law enforcement are more at risk because the criminals know who they are as they openly carry their firearms. Law abiding citizens have constitutional rights to defend themselves from these criminals, and they don't need barriers such as concealed carry permits laws. Due to Daugaard's prison reform agenda, a convicted drug felon was out on parole, forced his girlfriend out on her balcony naked, and dry fired a shotgun at her head just to teach her a lesson. Daugaard's liberal policies are causing more problems than they are solving, and now he wants to say to the citizens that they need to ask their Sherriff for the right to defend themselves from those problems? Sounds like something we would hear coming out of liberal California.