Local anti gun reglations in SD cities

[SDguy]

The information below is from South Dakota State Law. However, Sioux Falls and Rapid City, SD just passed local ordinances prohibiting carry of a firearm in the civic center in Rapid City and in any city building or park in Sioux Falls. At least this is what has been reported to me verbally in a discussion with several other firearm owners.

How do you read the state laws below in that light? It looks gray to me.

7-18A-36. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No county may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.

8-5-13. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No township may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.

9-19-20. Firearms regulation ordinances prohibited. No municipality may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.

 

[LVLouisCyphre]

State law trumps local ordinances. The ordinances are invalid.

 

[Dice]

Hello all.

Hi all. This will be my first post as your newest member. I am preparing to relocate from California to Sioux Falls in a month or 2. Like a good citizen, I have been browsing the laws for both SD and Sioux Falls, because ignorance in not an affirmative defense :yes2:

I came across this whopper in Sioux Falls' city ordinances:

Sec. 26-51.  Carrying concealed weapons.

No person shall carry concealed about his person any pistol or other firearm, 
slingshot, brass knuckle or knuckles of other material, or any sandbag, dagger, 
Bowie knife, razor, dirk knife, or other dangerous or deadly weapon, 
or any instrument or device which when used is likely to produce death or 
great bodily harm. Any peace officer may wear or carry such weapons as 
may be necessary and proper for the discharge of his official duties.

(1957 Rev. Ords., § 9.206)

State law references: Concealment of weapon with intent to commit felony, SDCL 22-14-8.

This seemed at odds with SDCL 9-19-20, like SDguy smartly pointed out.


So, I sent an email to the City government. I received a reply, but it was to tell me that they are going on holiday, and they will answer the question sometime after the 29th. I'll try to keep you all posted.

 

[Jim_Macklin]

Cities may have "home rule" powers byt it appears that SD has preempted the regulation of firearms.

City police will no doubt make arrests since they are paid by the city. The State Attorney General will file suit to block enforcement of such a law.

Contact the State Rifle Association and the AG, better to have a law suit than an arrest, unless it is a planned arrest.

 

[Dice]

They replied as promised.

So, I received the reply to my inquiry today, the 29th.

[Dice]:

While SDCL 9-19-20 does appear to make City Ordinance Sec. 26-51 null
and void, this has never been tested to my knowledge. SDCL 9-19-20 was
enacted in 1983, while Sec. 26-51 was enacted in 1957, thus, it is
arguable that SDCL 9-19-20 would only apply to any ordinance passed
after 1983 and would have no effect on Sec. 26-51. As I stated, this
has never been tested to my knowledge. The reason for that is, as you
ask in your e-mail, Sec. 26-51 is not enforced as to firearms. As long
as you comply with all the statutory requirements for carrying a
concealed weapon, you should not run into any problems (again, regarding
firearms). This is, of course, assuming that the only thing the police
are dealing with is the fact that there is a weapon concealed. If there
is something else going on with the firearm, then there are a host of
other laws (ordinances and statutes)that may come into play. I will
tell you also that Sec. 26-51 is enforced regarding other dangerous or
deadly weapons (generally knives with the most common being the
switchblade variety).

Hopefully this answers your questions. If not, feel free to contact me.

Keith E. Allenstein, Jr
Assistant City Attorney
Police and Fire Legal Advisor
320 West Fourth Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57104

As I understand this, the city ordinance does criminalize the carrying of concealed weapons, and can be used to prosecute a citizen for carrying a concealed weapon, but they don't choose to prosecute when the weapon is an otherwise legally carried firearm. This is nice to know, but at the same time, it makes me nervous as does any other discretionally-enforced law. It seems like I am being told, "Go ahead and carry legally. We won't arrest you for it. Trust us."

 

[SDguy]

As a long time resident and holder of a South Dakota CC permit as well as having a son in SD law enforcement I expect that the response you got is probably accurate. Local law enforcement in SD is pretty reasonable. I live in the Black Hills area (western side of the state) and have never had a bad experience with law enforcement.

I carry concealed nearly every day without any concern about unreasonable encounters with the law. So, I believe the response you got is accurate.

 

[JJFlash]

As a long time resident and holder of a South Dakota CC permit as well as having a son in SD law enforcement I expect that the response you got is probably accurate. Local law enforcement in SD is pretty reasonable. I live in the Black Hills area (western side of the state) and have never had a bad experience with law enforcement.

I carry concealed nearly every day without any concern about unreasonable encounters with the law. So, I believe the response you got is accurate.

Living in ND, I tend to agree with you. One reason I like living here is the common sense and reasonableness of the people, LEO included. But, the power here all rests with the city. LEO might ignore it and then again maybe not, so the outcome of an encounter rests entirely with them, at that point, as you have technicaly broken the law. While it might be thrown out in court, due to the state law superceding, it's still gonna be a hassle; and what if it's not thrown out, due to "grandfathering" of the municipal law? You could lose your CCW permit, at the least. I'd be uneasy (but, I'd still carry).