Nice, the way these slimy creatures play games with your rights, isn't it? Not only will we deny them, we won't even talk about them. I guess that's what happens when the role of servant and master are reversed.
I've been in correspondence with someone who has inside information on this from a faculty perspective. Due to the outright hostility of the preponderance of academics--and all of their leadership--I need to make sure his identity is protected, as well as remove all clues from his correspondences that I will share. And doesn't that speak to the sorry state of our "tolerant and diverse" institutions of higher learning, that the solons still administer consequences for the heresy of speaking the truth?
Before I get started, a couple of observations and caveats: I'm an outsider looking in. I hadn't even heard of this bill until a few days ago, so I don't want anything I write here to second-guess or complicate the foundation work already done by South Dakota RKBA activists. That said, I do find it odd that some guy in Ohio who's not even directly affected (that would be me) is the place where you'll find much original information on this.
Since I never intended for WarOnGuns to become a clearinghouse for local grassroots action alerts, gun owners in South Dakota who wish to pursue this should not rely on this site for anything more than a passing mention when something of note is brought to my attention.
There are a couple places to start with this for those interested in learning more:
Here's the NRA Alert that went out, As you see, the date has passed, so continue to monitor them for updates. Thing is, looking around their site, I don't see this getting any attention, so my uninformed guess is that they probably don't see much more they want to put energy into at this time.
A resource I would look to for marching orders is South Dakota Gun Owners. They have details you need to be aware of here, including background. They're "working right now to collect the last two votes necessary for final passage and we will need your help," and advise all to "stay tuned."
Their first action that the need support on is to email an important swing vote. Do it.
What follows are the correspondences I've received from our anonymous ally, presented in the order I received them. It's long, it's raw, and I did do some edits where I felt it appropriate, indicated by ellipses (...) There is some good stuff here, particularly from the academic mucky-mucks.
This will be a long post, but it contains good information. You'll notice I have not concentrated over-much on formatting.
-----------------------------------
Tue 2/19/08 10:04 PM
Hi David, I am reading about your Idaho bill, and we have a similar bill here in South Dakota having similar problems. I am trying to lobby for this, but am somewhat constrained by being a faculty member at one of the campuses. The upper level management has been very threatening and I would rather my name not be associated with the efforts in a public forum. But there is grassroots support on campus. There is a range on campus used by the college rifle team and the 4H youth shooting program that will be closed down if the college administration has their way and bans guns on campus, and those people are also fighting for the bill.
That said, a bunch of grass roots emails from pro gunners would be a good thing right about now. I have a list of which senators would be the most likely to flip our way and a plea that the rifle team sentout to the 4H parents. If I send you that stuff, maybe you could cut-n-paste or write your own blog article about it. Our bill officially looks to be dead but the senators have promised me it will come back to the floor this session,so a lot of emails (and/or phone calls) would help. I'll attach the blurb the rifle team sent me. It has the basic plan (although it's geared towards the 4H parents). They are trying to play up the fact that failing to pass this bill will make outlaws out of students who hunt or go to the range and downplay the fact that it will also allow CCW on campus . It will not change the law on campus, only those with goverment approval and the correct permit will be allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Any mention you could give this issue would be great. The web page for contacting the SD Legislature is such that you can type (or paste in -- keep columns below 80characters and don't use attachments) a message and then use the pulldown menu to send it to each senator in turn w/out re-typing it.
From talking to a couple of Senators here's a list of the players:
Senate sponsors on the PRO RKBA side want to pass HB 1261 so BOR can't close the range:
These are the really good guys take time to thank them. They are marked with an asterisk
below:
Schmidt (Dennis), Apa, Greenfield, Kloucek, Maher, McNenny, Napoli
Voted to Pass Bill (good guy)
Abdallah
Albers
Apa *
Bartling
Gant
Garnos
Greenfield *
Hunhoff voted against smoke-out but eventually for the bill, wavering
Lintz
Maher *
McNenny *
Napoli *
Peterson (Jim)
Schmidt (Dennis) *
voted to Kill the bill and allow BOR to close the range. These guy (and gals) all need to hear from you:
Dempster very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Gray very vocal leader AGAINST the bill but claimed to be wavering
Hansen (Tom) against us, but is in a tight race w/ Hargens (Rep who voted for us)
Hanson (Gary) seemed to switch back and forth, but finally voted against us
Hauge for smokeout but against bill??? Indicates he may be wavering
Heidepriem very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Hoerth wants to do the right thing, but afraid of NSU/BOR (he's in Aberdeen
Hundstad Very firmly against us, but he should hear from pro freedom folks
Jerstad Firmly against us, but fearful of NRA endorsing opponent???
Katus Probably firmly agasinst us
Knudson very vocal leader AGAINST the bill
Koetzle Generally a pro gun rights Senator, but seems very against this bill
McCracken Seems firmly against us
Nesselhuf Firmly against us, but should be kept busy w/ pro-freedom calls/mails
Smidt (Orville) seems to want to do the right thing, but being pressured by SDSU/BOR
Sutton Was in favor of the bill, but now saying wants same rules for capitol?
Turbak Berry Against, but claiming it needs amended (trying to play it both ways)
Not there:
Duenwald (on our side)
Kloucek * (indicates sponsor, on our side)
Olson (Ed) Against us
Two Bulls Not sure
So, we should concentrate on those we can win over more easily? Probably:
Orv Smidt, Gray, Hoerth, Sutton, Hanson, Hansen, Koetzle, and Jerstad Turbak Berry is a possibility.
Wed 2/20/08 6:10 PM
I've been in contact with the sponsors, and they (as of Sunday night, I have not heard back from them since then) are hoping to drag it out to the floor again. Either the same bill, or the same wording jammed into something else. At least two of the senators on the "call list"(Jerstad and Orv Smidt) are backpedaling and wavering. I think that if the sponsors feel that they can switch a couple of votes (of the 4 who were excused, one was a sponsor, another is on our side, and one was dead set against us) they will bring that wording back up. The guys who were on the fence are now changing their story. According to them, students are allowed to have guns in their car and dorm rooms already, and HB 1261 is not needed. As late as Saturday they were saying that HB1261 would allow students to have guns and lead to gunfights in the classrooms. It looks like the article you linked is referring to Friday's vote, and we're not giving up yet. If we can bring pressure on those fence-sitters it will be back...The governor has said he will sign it, and is actually publicly in favor of HB 1261.
Wed 2/20/08 6:39 PM
...It seems that the StateAssociation is in disarray (I think somebody moved away and nobody picked up the ball)...I've been tracking down the remnants of the state association group, and we're trying to rally but the web isn't in their comfort zone(email yes, but phone is better and web is not gonna happen). There is a student rifle and pistol club, they have a facebook presence but no web page... I also dug up a "SDSU Rifle Association" which seems to be a political RKBA group on campus...They had not been coordinating w/ theSenate on this as of 2/18, but maybe they have done something since then... I find that students can be very enthused at one moment, but not quite get around to finishing something, ,and I'm not sure what they have actually done already. There is also a college paper with some online comments http://media.www.sdsucollegian.com/media/storage/paper484/news/2008/02/13/News/Students.Association.Reacts.To.Gun.Bill-3207304.shtml
The story is old, but the comments are still being accessed and updated...
Wed 2/20/08 7:09 PM [In reference to the link to SD Gun Owners, above--DC]
Great. Their list of swing votes is slightly different....
Thu 2/21/08 6:45 AM
There's a couple of suspicious things going on. The biggest of these is that several liberal campus groups supposedly are trying to kill HB 1261. No real surprise, but the SDSU Academic Senate passed a measure to send an anti HB 1261 statement tothe legislature the day before the committee was initially to vote. The chairwoman of the Academic senate took it upon herself to draft the following:
Faculty in higher education at South Dakota State University stand united with The Board of Regents in opposing HB 1261. We note that all permission to carry guns is commonly subject to regulation (even in the state of South Dakota) dependent upon location and potential danger to public safety. Our universities are not the singular purview of students, but are common areas for many members of the public. We are proud host community members in sporting events, meetings, conferences, performances, and speaking engagements. In addition, we offer child care and educational opportunities to children in the area and the region. The inability to control and/or charge violators in case of devastating attacks is not subsumed by crisis management, but rather is prevented most effectively by day-to-day safety precautions and regulations for students, staff, faculty and state citizens who enjoy the many benefits of our university communities.
SDSU Council of Higher Education
SDSU American Association of University Professors
SDSU Academic Senate
She sent that statement w/ this email:
Greetings Senators: I hope you all are having a good semester so far. Although we have a meeting coming up on Tuesday but we have a piece of business that can not wait. I have been approached as to whether the Senate is taking a stand against HB 1261 allowing weapons and concealed weapons on campus. This bill has passed through the House and is going next to the Senate. But Monday morning it will be discussed by the State Senate Committee. We would be opposing it for safety reasons. Attached, please find a draft of a common statement that will be submitted on behalf of the Academic Senate, COHE and the AAUP if they all sign off on it. So please let me know immediately how you would vote and I will be passing it if I receive a majority YES vote by 3PM tomorrow.Very few faculty members even found out about this statement, which was supposedly approved by email vote w/ no chance to debate. This has not shown up on their published agenda or in their minutes, but has been passed off as an official statement. Normally the State Senate wouldn't pay any attention to such, but it probably didn't help us. Thanks for sending the link to the SDGO site. I suspect that the bill just flew through the house so easily and seemed like such a common sense solution that nobody thought there'd be any heavy lifting in the Senate either.
Madeleine Andrawis
Thu 2/21/08 7:35 AM
There have been several rent-a-cops and university police testifying against these bills. The house testimony was contradicted by a real cop. The rent-a-cop testified that if they showed up and there wereboth good and bad guys w/ guns then the police might shoot a good guy. The house committee called the real cop back up, who testified that "No, actually we're trained to think before we shoot". I heard that from a person who was at the hearing, and had read it online since then, but can't find it now. During the Senate hearing a Vermillion (town of another University, USD) cop (police chief?) testified against it. It looks like that'd be mentioned here: http://media.www.volanteonline.com/media/storage/paper468/news/2008/02/13/News/Senate.Could.Revive.Gun.Bill-3206370.shtml
but it may have gotten cut (I can't see it in the article, but the subtitle indicates that they did testify...It's actually quoted here:
http://www.m-14forum.com/upload/showthread.php?p=325375
but not a "main stream" source.
-------------------------------------
[DC back again]
That's what I've got. I can think of several actions I would do were I directly involved in this fight, but this needs to be something South Dakotans take on themselves--including disseminating future information. I'll keep an eye on things from afar, but unless something newsworthy breaks, don't expect to see too much more here--besides, if you need to rely on some guy in Ohio for this, the battle's already lost.
I would be interested in at least asking this Andrawis "Archon" exactly what her qualifications are for prescribing appropriate personal defense strategies for gun owners in a campus environment--stuff like what training she's had in that field, expertise, certifications, experience--the same kind of stuff she'd be expected to produce were her other professional opinions to be taken seriously. I note she proudly lists herself as a member of a group of "collaborators," and I suspect that's all the credentials we need understand.
5 comments:
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Article IV
Sec. 24. The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves
and the state shall not be denied.
If ever there was a perfect example of "vigilantism" for the Authorized Journalists, this is it. The Board of Regents are kind of like the Minutemen, except they're trying to keep out their fellow Americans. Last I checked, the Minutemen didn't charge enormous fees and spend taxpayer money.
It's a good thing our rights do not depend on government respecting them, isn't it?
Your understanding of SD legislative procedure is incorrect. This bill was killed in committee, then brought to the Senate, bypassing the committee, by a "smoke out" procedure. Unfortunately it does not yet have the support to bring it up for a vote and I doubt it will pass.
I'm a non-faculty employee of the BOR and risk my job every time I carry. Most of the faculty and all the administration are against this bill. I'm afraid things will not change without litigation. Either someone will have to be fired or attacked on campus and be willing to sue the administration and the BOR. Maybe sueing the senators who voted against their right to bear arms would be helpful.
Russ, I'm looking at what I wrote in tandem with what I linked to, and I'm having a hard time finding where my "understanding of SD legislative procedure is incorrect," or how it differs from your description.
I wrote it was "stopped in the Senate by a procedural maneuver called a 'smoke-out,' that not only killed it for this year, but also managed to stifle any debate on the floor."
The news account I linked to says "Sen. Ben Nusselhuf, D-Vermillion, said the measure, HB 1261, was forced onto the senate floor Friday morning in a 'smoke-out' by 16 senators who gave it a 'do not pass' recommendation. A majority of the senate would have had to vote to change the recommendation to 'pass' in order to trigger a debate. Proponents failed 14-17 to do that, effectively killing the bill for this year."
Then you say "This bill was killed in committee, then brought to the Senate, bypassing the committee, by a 'smoke out' procedure. Unfortunately it does not yet have the support to bring it up for a vote and I doubt it will pass."
Now maybe there's some subtlety escaping me here, but I'm not finding the source of your beef.
As for things changing I'm going to post the NRA alert later this morning. It looks like there are still some legislative plays that can be made before the session ends.
But in truth, nothing will change umless SD gun owners get angry and get involved. So far, based on traffic I'm seeing from there to here and the lack of interest in the KABA post, I don't have high hopes it was worth my time to put effort into this. It would appear that there is much complascency and detachment, and people like you who care enough to put it on the line are rare--just like everywhere else.
Post a Comment