Governor Rounds

Governor Rounds' Letter Forces Disturbing Conclusion

During the 2003 Legislative session, pro-gun Rep. Tim Begalka sponsored the Property Rights Act to protect property and firearms from the Emergency Gun Grab.

As a result of SDGO’s mailings and e-mail alerts, hundreds of concerned gun owners from across the state contacted Governor Mike Rounds, urging him to support the Property Rights Act and voicing their opposition to the Emergency Gun Grab.

However, Governor Rounds dismissed these concerns and urged the Legislature to defeat Begalka’s much needed legislation.

He then mailed a letter dated March 21 defending his actions.

“HB 1212 (The Property Rights Act) never reached my desk for consideration,” Rounds states at the beginning of the letter. However, he fails to mention that he pressured the Legislature to kill the bill before it could reach his desk, both from behind the scenes and in the recorded testimony of his spokeswoman, “Homeland Security” Czar Deb Bowman.¹

In his letter, Rounds then suggests that the Property Rights Act was impractical because it stipulated that no private property may be taken without the consent of the owner. “Unfortunately,” he states, “the owner of the property may not immediately be available to give permission in an emergency.”

But while the absence of the owner may be a viable concern, it hardly warrants the blanket power granted by the Emergency Gun Grab to forcibly seize property over the objections of an owner who is present.

Rounds concludes his letter by citing an imaginary scenario to justify the governor’s blanket emergency power.

“For example,” he says, “if the property owner was unavailable and a terrorist group was on the verge of capturing a building with weapons, should we leave the weapons for the terrorists to capture and use against Americans? Alternatively, should we take the weapons from the building to use against the terrorists?”

In this example, Rounds’ avoids what should be immediately obvious: there are better options.

If he knows that “a terrorist group was on the verge of capturing a building with weapons,” rather than spending time confiscating the privately owned firearms, why not concentrate his efforts on killing or capturing the terrorists? Or is Rounds suggesting that it would be safer or more appropriate to simply seize all firearms that might become available to terrorists?

Rounds’ example also give one pause to wonder if he really believes that the National Guard or even the local police are so poorly equipped that they would need to use the hunting and sporting firearms that a citizen could legally own?

But as ludicrous as it may be, Rounds’ example forces an extremely disturbing conclusion.

It confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Emergency Gun Grab law now in place empowers state government to confiscate your firearms.

Return to News and Updates