Re: Open Carry Laws for South Dakota

[gharleydude]

Re: Open Carry Laws for South Dakota

I guess I am somewhat confused about Open Carry Laws in South Dakota and, am hoping someone can help clear up my confusion. In reading up on some of the laws there, if I understand correctly, even if you are out of state (I am from Wisconsin) you can open carry, but just not while riding your motorcycle. I am planning on attending Sturgis this year as I have many times before, only this is the first time I have considered taking a pistol with me. I just obtained my Conceal and Carry permit for Wisconsin, and would have applied for the Utah Conceal and Carry, except it takes sixty days to get approved, thus, obviously do not have the time before leaving for Sturgis. So then to sum up my question for anyone in the legal know; I can open carry if I am not on the bike, anywhere in South Dakota, is that correct? But just not while I am on the bike? Thanks people

 

[XDSTEEL]

I guess I am somewhat confused about Open Carry Laws in South Dakota and, am hoping someone can help clear up my confusion. In reading up on some of the laws there, if I understand correctly, even if you are out of state (I am from Wisconsin) you can open carry, but just not while riding your motorcycle. I am planning on attending Sturgis this year as I have many times before, only this is the first time I have considered taking a pistol with me. I just obtained my Conceal and Carry permit for Wisconsin, and would have applied for the Utah Conceal and Carry, except it takes sixty days to get approved, thus, obviously do not have the time before leaving for Sturgis. So then to sum up my question for anyone in the legal know; I can open carry if I am not on the bike, anywhere in South Dakota, is that correct? But just not while I am on the bike? Thanks people

Good News. YOU CAN! You can ride with a pistol on you OC or CC with your CCP. South Dakota does except ALL out of state permits. South Dakota Statute

Printer Friendly
32-20-6.6. Carrying firearm on motorcycle or off-road vehicle--Exception for holder of concealed pistol permit or disabled hunter permit--Enforcement--Violation as misdemeanor. No person, other than a law enforcement officer or conservation officer, or any person on the person's own land or land leased by the person, may operate or ride on any motorcycle or off-road vehicle with any firearm in the person's possession unless the firearm is completely unloaded and within a carrying case which encloses the entire firearm. However, this section does not apply to any person who is carrying a pistol and possesses a permit to carry a concealed pistol issued pursuant to chapter 23-7. This section does not apply to any person who holds a permit issued pursuant to § 41-8-37 while engaged in hunting from an off-road vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the permit. This section shall be enforced by all law enforcement officers including conservation officers. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor

 

[sig p6]

I f you look at the map S.D.does take wisconsin ccw

 

[gharleydude]

Are you sure about that? I looked at a map that dealt with Conceal and Carry states, and according to what I saw, Minnesota and South Dakota were two states that did not honor the Wisconsin Conceal and Carry permit. Perhaps I looked at an outdated map or something, but it was only recently that I looked at the map, so it is hard for me to believe it was outdated. I have to be right on this, and there is no room for error, as the penalties are severe if I am in the wrong.

 

[gharleydude]

Concealed Carry Permit Information By State

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

Concealed Carry Permit Information By State

Link Removed

Just curious. Has anyone checked to see what South Dakota law actually says?

South Dakota Codified Laws

23-7-7.4. Nonresident permit to carry concealed pistol--Validity in South Dakota--Application. Any valid permit to carry a concealed pistol, issued to a nonresident of South Dakota, is valid in South Dakota according to the terms of its issuance in the state of its issue, but only to the extent that the terms of issuance comply with any appropriate South Dakota statute or promulgated rule. However, if the holder of such a nonresident permit to carry a concealed pistol becomes, at any time, a legal resident of South Dakota, the provisions of this section no longer apply.

 

[gharleydude]

Sounds like a bunch of double talk to me. The verbiage of this sounds quite ambiguous and or confusing.. Clarification in layman's terms, anyone?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sounds like a bunch of double talk to me. The verbiage of this sounds quite ambiguous and or confusing.. Clarification in layman's terms, anyone?

Any valid permit that you possess from any other state is good in South Dakota, so long as you are not a resident of South Dakota. If you become a resident of South Dakota, then you must obtain the South Dakota permit.

 

[gharleydude]

Thank you for your response, Navy LCDR, I just discovered this fact today, after doing an insane amount of online research. I feel much better now, knowing where I stand from a legal point of view. Again thank you for your response.

 

[XDSTEEL]

Thank you for your response, Navy LCDR, I just discovered this fact today, after doing an insane amount of online research. I feel much better now, knowing where I stand from a legal point of view. Again thank you for your response.

You can open carry without a permit also. just throwing it out there. Please checkout Open Carry South Dakota on Facebook!

 

[NavyLCDR]

You can open carry without a permit also. just throwing it out there. Please checkout Open Carry South Dakota on Facebook!

gharleydude wants to carry on his motorcycle, which does require a permit.

 

[safetypro]

I am confused by this post. On one hand, there's a declaration of "Good News. YOU CAN!" In the last sentence of that paragraph, there is language including "South Dakota does except ALL out of state permits."

Was the intent to communicate, as is posted, that SD excepts (has exceptions) for ALL out of state permits? If so, this is exclusionary language. Or, was the intent to communicate SD accepts all out of state permits? This is inclusionary language.

I would like clarification on this. Language is essential, particularly when dealing with law and interpretation of law. Example: "may" or "should" (permissive) v. "shall" or "must" (mandatory).

I look forward to, and will appreciate, clarification. Thank you.

Good News. YOU CAN! You can ride with a pistol on you OC or CC with your CCP. South Dakota does except ALL out of state permits. South Dakota Statute

Printer Friendly
32-20-6.6. Carrying firearm on motorcycle or off-road vehicle--Exception for holder of concealed pistol permit or disabled hunter permit--Enforcement--Violation as misdemeanor. No person, other than a law enforcement officer or conservation officer, or any person on the person's own land or land leased by the person, may operate or ride on any motorcycle or off-road vehicle with any firearm in the person's possession unless the firearm is completely unloaded and within a carrying case which encloses the entire firearm. However, this section does not apply to any person who is carrying a pistol and possesses a permit to carry a concealed pistol issued pursuant to chapter 23-7. This section does not apply to any person who holds a permit issued pursuant to § 41-8-37 while engaged in hunting from an off-road vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the permit. This section shall be enforced by all law enforcement officers including conservation officers. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor

 

[BluesStringer]

I am confused by this post. On one hand, there's a declaration of "Good News. YOU CAN!" In the last sentence of that paragraph, there is language including "South Dakota does except ALL out of state permits."

Was the intent to communicate, as is posted, that SD excepts (has exceptions) for ALL out of state permits? If so, this is exclusionary language. Or, was the intent to communicate SD accepts all out of state permits? This is inclusionary language.

I would like clarification on this. Language is essential, particularly when dealing with law and interpretation of law. Example: "may" or "should" (permissive) v. "shall" or "must" (mandatory).

I look forward to, and will appreciate, clarification. Thank you.

Well, I doubt you'll get an answer from the person whom you quoted and asked the question of, because I've checked in on this site almost every single day since 2012 when that post was made, and I don't even remember anyone calling themselves "XDSTEEL." That shouldn't be surprising though, as XDSTEEL only had 12 posts total since his join-date in 2010.

My bet though is that he meant to say "accepted" rather than "excepted." NavyLCDR's subsequent posts seem to verify that in-context to the language of the applicable SD laws.

Blues