Legislators Attempt to Disregard Constituents

Committee members express anger at “flood of calls and postcards”

South Dakota Gun Owners E-mail Alert
PO Box 3845, Rapid City, SD 57709
(605) 737-5583
LibertyTeeth@sdgo.org http://www.SDGO.org

(Tuesday, February 10, 2004) – “It seems our elected officials don't like us to watch what they're doing.”

That’s how one SDGO member summed up the media circus surrounding HB 1287 and SB 212 (click here for a brief synopsis of both bills). Both bills were brought to a vote on Saturday, Feb. 7, in the House State Affairs committee.

HB 1287, which offered protection for all private property and firearms, was unanimously voted down after an unprecedented tirade from several committee members. Their anti-freedom vote is recorded below.

Preceding the vote, Representatives Chris Madsen, Matt Michels, Mel Olson, John Teupel and Jean Hunhoff, led by committee chairman Bill Peterson, spent approximately an hour berating South Dakota Gun Owners and making unsubstantiated and irrational accusations.

Judging from their emotionally charged speeches, they were most angered at SDGO’s wide publication of the fact that SDCL 33-15-8 (3) grants power to the governor to seize private property, including firearms, against the will of the owner. Yet in spite of their inability to offer any solid evidence disproving this fact, they continued to make allegations that SDGO had misled its members.

Governor Rounds’ lobbyist Brent Wilbur asserted that the right to arms is already protected because the state constitution prohibits the seizure of firearms.

"I think South Dakota has an absolute prohibition against restricting gun ownership,” Wilbur said.

But Wilbur failed to explain why Governor Rounds had defended the forcible seizure power last year in a letter by citing an imaginary example of state officials taking private firearms without the owner’s consent. If such an action is not currently legal, why would the Governor even mention it as a possibility?

(To review the Governor’s statement, see Governor Rounds' Letter Forces Disturbing Conclusion.)

After admitting that they had received your flood of calls and postcards, the Legislators attempted to discredit this massive outpouring of constituent opinion by labeling it “questionable high-pressure tactics” and by making unsubstantiated claims of having been threatened.

While SDGO has no way of knowing what individual constituents may have said to their own legislators, the politicians did not produce one telephone transcript or written message as evidence at the committee hearing.

Rep. Mel Olson claimed on Saturday that he feared for the safety of his children, and that he would not allow them to come to the Capitol. In an effort to justify his vote against what he called a “flood of calls” in support of HB 1287, Rep. Olson stated, "A vote for this bill is a vote for terror. It's a vote for intimidation. It's a vote for physical threats."

However, when questioned on Monday by the Rapid City Journal, the worst Rep. Olson could claim were messages from constituents indicating that they would oppose his re-election if he voted against HB 1287 (Journal, February 10).

The Rapid City Journal also reported today that Rep. Joni Cutler has made allegations of having received a threatening e-mail from a member of South Dakota Gun Owners regarding her Airport Gun Ban bill.

It is interesting that Rep. Cutler made no mention of such an e-mail when she spoke with SDGO after her bill was defeated last Monday, but complained only of “rude messages.” SDGO does not condone any kind of improper communication. However, since Rep. Cutler declines to give the sender’s name, or even relate the text of the message, it is difficult to verify its authenticity.

One thing can be verified by South Dakota Gun Owners: all communication from SDGO staff was factual and polite. The accusation that any SDGO official made threats or used inappropriate language is patently false. If there was any use of threats, intimidation or misinformation, it was on the part of the politicians, not SDGO.

Despite the considerable efforts of the committee to discredit and ignore their constituents, SDGO members have gained a limited victory this session. SB 212 passed the committee unanimously, and now that HB 1287 is dead, there is no longer any reason to oppose the Governor’s bill.

SB 212 does exempt firearms from forcible seizure, and while it does nothing to protect any other property, not even ammunition, it is a step in the right direction.

SDGO members engulfed the Capitol with calls, postcards and petitions calling for property and gun rights protection. Without this active grassroots participation from all across the state, no redress action would have been approved this year, not even SB 212.

Contrary to the claims of politicians, your hard work this session has greatly aided the right to arms in South Dakota, and will continue to pay dividends in the ongoing battle for Liberty. Whatever they might say, politicians know that if they continue trampling their constituents, the voters may not return them to office.

Committee members voting against HB 1287, the Property Rights Protection bill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Synopsis of HB 1287 and SB 212

Rep. Tim Begalka introduced HB 1287 on January 26th, 2004. It was widely known as the Property Rights Protection bill, and would have prohibited the taking or use of any private property, including firearms, against the will of the property owner.

SB 212 was introduced two days later at the request of Governor Rounds. It is designed to amend the exact same part of the law, but exempts only firearms from forcible seizure.

Both bills came in response to the public outcry against SDCL 33-15-8 (3), which allows the governor to take private property against the will of the owner during an emergency.

HB 1287 would have added the following underlined language:

...the Governor...

(3) May call upon and use any facilities, equipment, other nonmedical supplies, and resources available from any source, other than personal or private funds, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter... However, nothing in this subdivision authorizes the taking or use of private property against the will of the property owner ;

SB 212 adds these underlined words:

...the Governor...

(3) May call upon and use any facilities, equipment, other nonmedical supplies, and resources available from any source, other than personal or private funds, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter... However, nothing in this subdivision may be construed to authorize the taking of firearms, as defined in subdivision 22-1-2(16), without the consent of the owner ;

For an in depth comparison of the bills, please see HB 1287 Offers Real Protection for Gun Rights

Back to Legislators Attempt to Disregard Constituents

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone of independence.” – George Washington

Return to News and Updates