Lawmakers might legalize concealed pistols in bars
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — A proposal is moving through the South Dakota Legislature that would permit concealed pistols to be carried in any bar or other establishment that earns more than half of its total income from the sale of malt or alcoholic beverages.
The change would repeal a state law prohibiting concealed pistols in those establishments that's been in effect since 2019 when state lawmakers legalized concealed carry.
Concern, intense rhetoric accompany HB 1239 in Pierre
Republican Sen. Mykala Voita added the repeal wording earlier this week when the Senate debated .
The House version of the bill called for allowing concealed firearms and ammunition in most areas of county, municipal and township buildings and spaces. Senators on Monday added the Voita amendment allowing concealed pistols in bars and then voted 30-4 to pass the bill.
HB 1218 then returned to the House of Representatives for a decision whether to accept the Voita change. The House voted 35-34 on Tuesday in favor of the motion from Republican Rep. Jeff Bathke to disagree with the Voita amendment and appointed a conference committee to negotiate differences between the two versions.
The conference committee met on Wednesday morning. Five of the six members showed up. The sixth, Bathke, didn't attend. The group listened to nine minutes of testimony favoring the Voita amendment from Brian Gosch, a Rapid City lawyer and former House member, who now represents the National Rifle Association.
Gosch argued several points. He said people can open-carry firearms in South Dakota bars now, and neighboring states of Minnesota and Montana allow concealed-carry in alcohol establishments. He referred to mass shootings at a variety of locations in other states where guns weren't allowed. 'Gun-free zones don't work,' Gosch said.
One opponent testified against the Voita amendment: Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers. He said the Senate decision on the Voita amendment was a surprise. He suggested the committee slow down, so that he could offer another amendment that might be acceptable.
One of the conference panel's legislators, Republican Rep. Kevin Jensen, has served as a concealed-carry instructor for 11 years. He pointed out the vagueness of the ban. '50 percent when?' he said. 'It's really hard to know, even as an instructor.' He added, 'I think we have to be very specific.'
Jensen also raised the example of someone who can legally carry a concealed pistol into an establishment that makes less than half of its income from alcohol sales but can't carry a concealed pistol in an establishment that makes more than half of its income from alcohol sales.
'Why is one restricted and the other not?' Jensen asked 'To me it's just common sense that we pass it as amended.'
There were many county and municipal lobbyists in the audience. So was Ryan Brunner, a senior aide to Gov. Larry Rhoden.
The conference committee voted 5-0 to recommend passage of the Senate version.
The House voted 56-14 on Wednesday afternoon to accept the Senate version. Republican Rep. Aaron Aylward said that the change wouldn't stop bars from individually choosing to ban concealed weapons from their premises.
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
UPI
24 minutes ago
- UPI
Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, speaks at a press conference calling on the administration to release the Epstein files in the U.S. Capitol building last week. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate began its month‑long recess Saturday night amid negotiations to advance the nomination of dozens of Donald Trump's pending nominees, as the president told Sen. Chuck Schumer to "go to hell" when the talks collapsed. Trump, in a post to his Truth Social platform on Saturday, had wanted the Senate to stay in session but accused Schumer of "political extortion" for allegedly demanding a billion dollars in funding in order to approve dozens of his remaining "highly qualified nominees" for appointment to the administration. A source familiar with Schumer's alleged demands told Axios that Schumer wants the White House to release withheld federal funding in exchange for passing a small batch of the nominees. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" Trump said in his post. "Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our country." Schumer later shared Trump's post and quipped, "The Art of the Deal." He later added that Trump had "attempted to steamroll" the Senate into approving his "historically unqualified nominees." But the standoff has led Senate Republicans to express support for the possibility that Trump use recess appointments, a controversial constitutional mechanism that allows the president to "temporarily" fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. "The Senate should immediately adjourn and let President Trump use recess appointments to enact the agenda 77M Americans voted for," Sen. Roger Marshall posted on Saturday. Senate Republicans also indicated they might pursue a change to Senate rules after they return from recess to make it easier to pass through confirmations. Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Fox News that lawmakers would be moving forward with a rule change in September.
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Sen. Mullin pushes for Senate rule changes as Trump nominees stalled: 'Not our fault'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., breaks down the Senate GOP's efforts to pass President Donald Trump's nominations and the resistance from the Democrats.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
