5 bills on firearm legislation in South Dakota
Here's a breakdown of the bills and where they are at:
SB 100 prohibits the restriction of carrying concealed pistols on college campuses.
If passed, no Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict the lawful carrying of a concealed pistol, stun gun or pepper spray.
The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Mykala Voita, has proposed two amendments to the bill, although they haven't been voted on yet. The first amendment would require that the individual carrying a concealed pistol has an enhanced or restricted enhanced permit.
The second would amend the bill to limit restrictions rather than prohibit them: Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict concealed pistols in a designated portion of the building only if:
Significant hazardous materials, more than 55 gallons of flammable liquid, or cylinders containing corrosive gasses are present
A room is used for scientific research or manufacturing and has concentrated airborne particles
Areas where federal security clearance is required
During a special event where metal detectors are present
SB 100 passed with a 7-2 vote in the Senate State Affairs Committee and is scheduled for debate on the Senate floor February 12.
SB 81 would prohibit financial institutions from using firearms codes to flag transactions involving firearms, ammunition and other accessories.
A firearms code is an indicator that financial institutions such as banks put on a transaction that identifies whether the seller is a firearms dealer or whether the transaction was for firearms or ammunition.
The bill also says no government agency or person can keep a record of privately owned firearms except its owner. The exception is records kept during a criminal investigation.
If a financial institution is found using firearms codes, they may be subject to a civil penalty of $25,000.
Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff introduced the bill and worked with financial institutions, the National Rifle Association and retailers in the state to create the legislation.
SB 81 passed through the Senate as well as the House and Senate Commerce and Energy Committees with little opposition. It heads next to the House and if passed, will go to Gov. Larry Rhoden's desk.
HB 1222 expands who is allowed to carry a gun on school grounds.
Currently, anyone who carries a weapon onto school property is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The exceptions include law enforcement officers, a starting gun for sporting events, supervised firearm training, and individuals who hold an advanced concealed carry permit and have written permission from the principal.
HB 1222 aims to include individuals with a concealed carry permit who could then carry on school property, but not in buildings used for class instruction.
The bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on February 12. Republican Rep. Kaley Nolz introduced the bill.
Under HB 1218, county commissioners, township supervisors or government municipalities wouldn't be allowed to prohibit or restrict a county, township or municipal employee, officer or volunteer from lawfully carrying a concealed firearm in a government building.
Republican Rep. Aaron Aylward from Lincoln County introduced HB 1218. It was referred to the House Local Government Committee, but does not have a hearing date set.
HB 1080 would void any agreements that prohibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms and ammunition.
A 'covenant running with the land,' per the language in the bill, is an agreement that transfers to future owners of the same property. For example, there may be a covenant requiring certain yard maintenance; these agreements are common in home owners associations (HOAs).
In this instance, if a covenant was made that restricted future land owners from the types of firearms used on that land, those agreements would be void if the legislation becomes law.
'I as a land owner cannot write a covenant on the land I own to tell an owner years or decades or centuries from now, 'They can't hunt on that land or have a gun in their house to protect themselves and their families,'' said the bill's prime sponsor, Republican Rep. Drew Peterson, in a committee hearing.
The bill unanimously passed in House Judiciary and had one 'nay' vote on the House floor. It now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
36 minutes ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'
San Francisco Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes
Crime Gun violence US elections Election securityFacebookTweetLink Follow A failed political candidate was sentenced to 80 years in federal prison Wednesday for his convictions in a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in Albuquerque in the aftermath of the 2020 election. A jury convicted former Republican candidate Solomon Peña earlier this year of conspiracy, weapons and other charges in the shootings in December 2022 and January 2023 on the homes of four Democratic officials, including the current state House speaker. Prosecutors, who had sought a 90-year sentence, said Peña has shown no remorse and had hoped to cause political change by terrorizing people who held contrary views to him into being too afraid to take part in political life. Peña's lawyers had sought a five-year sentence, saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Peña was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency. 'Today was a necessary step toward Mr. Peña's continued fight to prove his innocence,' said Nicholas Hart, one of Peña's attorneys. 'He looks forward to the opportunity to appeal, where serious issues about the propriety of this prosecution will be addressed.' The attacks took place as threats and acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials surged across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors said Peña resorted to violence in the belief that a 'rigged' election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state Legislature. The shootings targeted the homes of officials including two county commissioners after their certification of the 2022 election, in which Peña lost by nearly 50 percentage points. No one was injured, but in one case bullets passed through the bedroom of a state senator's 10-year-old daughter. Two other men who had acknowledged helping Peña with the attacks had previously pleaded guilty to federal charges and received yearslong prison sentences.
