Governor Attempts to Justify Firearms Confiscation

Governor Attempts to Justify Forcible Seizure

Rounds suggests that power to forcibly seize firearms is necessary

In a letter mailed earlier this year, Governor Mike Rounds told concerned gun owners that he thinks state officials may use emergency powers to seize firearms.

His statement came in response to an outcry against the new state law granting the governor blanket authority to confiscate private property in the event of an emergency.

This dangerous new law, which SDGO has termed the Emergency Gun Grab, was pushed quietly through the legislature last year.

Because of its extremely broad wording, the new law empowers state government to forcibly seize almost any kind of private property, including firearms.

Governor Rounds’ letter suggested that state government would use this power to confiscate firearms (see inside) and confirmed gun owners’ fears that over-zealous officials may try to disarm law-abiding citizens in the event of a terrorist attack.

“The Emergency Gun Grab is a completely unwarranted grant of force,” says Ray Lautenschlager, Executive Director of South Dakota Gun Owners. “It is simply inconceivable that any real-life emergency would necessitate the forcible seizure of private property, especially firearms.”

Lautenschlager says that disarming the citizens would be one of the worst possible actions for the state to take in the face of a terrorist attack.

He also points out that blanket power to forcibly seize private property is far more likely to be abused than to be used for any good purpose.

During this year’s Legislative session, pro-gun Rep. Tim Begalka (R. Clear Lake) introduced the Property Rights Act. This simple bill would have effectively repealed the Emergency Gun Grab by stipulating that no private property may be taken without the consent of the owner.

However, power hungry legislators and state officials strongly opposed this straightforward and effective defense of property rights.

Rep. Bill Peterson (R. Sioux Falls), the original sponsor of the Emergency Gun Grab, led the opposition to Begalka’s Property Rights Act, calling it “a major step backwards.”

“Homeland Security” Czar Deb Bowman stated on behalf of the Governor, “We feel that there are going to be situations where the governor may need the authority to take someone’s private property. There is scenario after scenario.”

The “scenarios” that Bowman offered suggested that South Dakota citizens cannot be trusted to help in a true emergency and would refuse to cooperate with the efforts of state officials to respond to emergencies!

According to Lautenschlager, that is an unfounded fear. “Americans in general, and South Dakotans in particular, have proven their generosity by giving sacrificially to those in need. Time after time, they have proven that they can be depended upon to respond appropriately in emergency situations.”

Lautenschlager believes that the only time the people of South Dakota might hesitate to donate their property would be if the government’s assessment of the situation was obviously exaggerated.

“In cases where dishonest or over-zealous government officials tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons, the people would have the good sense to disagree, and that is their right.”

Lautenschlager says that under our American constitutions, the right to property has always been considered sacred. “It is the right of the property owner, not the government, to decide when private property will be donated for government use.”

SDGO members strongly opposed the Emergency Gun Grab when it was introduced in 2002, and in 2003 SDGO generated strong grassroots support for Begalka’s Property Rights Act.

Under this growing pressure, big government politicians are attempting to divide gun owners from other property rights advocates by offering a weak exception for firearms.

By doing so, these politicians hope to silence a large part of their opposition, all the while keeping gun owners at their mercy by maintaining the blanket seizure power.

Once this seizure power is accepted in principle as a normal and legitimate power of government, exceptions can be easily erased.

But gun owners must ask themselves why they should accept a dubious compromise when they could repeal the entire Emergency Gun Grab.

The very fact that anti-gun politicians would offer such an exception signals their fear of the statewide exposure that concerned gun owners are bringing to bear on their position.

Now is the time to press the attack. By standing together, gun owners can defeat this dangerous threat to property rights and the right to keep and bear arms.

Return to News and Updates