Aiexpress – Senator Brent Hoffman, a representative from Hartford, expressed his views on the state Senate floor on January 16, 2024.
Legislation in South Dakota is nearing completion that would enable adults to carry concealed pistols in schools, provided they obtain a permit and receive permission from the principal.
The bill was sent to the House floor after receiving an 11-1 vote by the House Judiciary Committee at the Capitol in Pierre on Monday. If the bill passes without any changes, it will be sent to the governor’s desk.
Rep. Mike Stevens, a Republican from Yankton, was the only member in the committee who voted against the proposal.
Rep. Mike Stevens, a Republican from Yankton, attentively listens to the testimony given during the House Education Committee on January 17, 2024. (Image credit: Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
Stevens criticized the bill, suggesting that it implies a lack of concern for public safety on the part of school boards and teachers. He argued that the Legislature shouldn’t have to take on the responsibility of ensuring safety if those in the education system are deemed incompetent.
Currently, only law enforcement officers and school sentinels have the legal authority to carry firearms on school premises in the state.
Becoming a school sentinel requires meeting several requirements, one of which is completing 80 hours of training. The sentinel program was established in 2013 to provide schools, particularly those in rural areas, with an alternative to having school resource officers, who are dedicated law enforcement personnel.
Bill details
Senate Bill 203 aims to introduce a new provision that would permit individuals who are 21 years of age or older, possess an enhanced concealed carry permit, and obtain written authorization from a school principal or other authorized person in charge of the school premises, to carry firearms on school grounds. To be eligible for an enhanced concealed carry permit, individuals must undergo an FBI background check and successfully complete an approved handgun course. The proposed bill seeks to provide an additional legal avenue for individuals to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons on school premises.
There were concerns raised by several legislators on the committee regarding the decision to designate principals as decision-makers rather than superintendents or school boards. Some lawmakers also voiced their doubts about the vague language in the bill, specifically questioning if the “other person” mentioned could include janitors.
According to Sen. Brent Hoffman, R-Hartford, the main sponsor of the bill, he believes that school boards have the authority to create local policies that would require principals to seek board approval. However, it is important to note that the bill itself does not specifically address this matter.
‘School safety 2.0’ bill focusing on locked doors, anonymous tip line fails in Senate
Hoffman explained that he selected principals as decision-makers due to their thorough knowledge of their staff and buildings. This decision was also influenced by the fact that certain other states have already implemented comparable laws designating principals in such roles.
This is Hoffman’s third attempt at passing school safety legislation since the start of the legislative session in January. One of his previous bills proposed making school resource officers or sentinels mandatory, which are currently optional. The other bill aimed to establish minimum safety requirements, including locked doors and the promotion of an anonymous school safety tip line. Unfortunately, both bills were rejected.
Hoffman expressed his intention to implement proactive measures for the safety of students in order to prevent the occurrence of a mass shooting in South Dakota schools.
According to Hoffman, the primary goal of schools is to provide a quality education to students. However, this does not mean that schools should disregard the environmental challenges that exist. While it would be ideal to have a pristine environment and solely focus on academics, it is important to address the problems that are present.
Education lobbyists express concerns, ask for changes
Lobbyists from the education community have come forward to express their opposition to Hoffman’s recent bill. While they do not oppose the concept of gun rights in general, they do have concerns about certain language used in the legislation. Some lobbyists have suggested amendments that would shift the decision-making authority to school boards or superintendents. However, despite efforts made by Rep. Stevens and Rep. Tim Reisch, these proposed amendments were ultimately unsuccessful.
According to Doug Wermedal, a representative from the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, the bill has a few shortcomings. One of the concerns raised is the absence of an advance notice provision, similar to the 24-hour notice required for enhanced permit holders carrying concealed pistols in the state Capitol. Wermedal also pointed out that the bill could lead to confusion as it allows for different responses from various principals within the same district. Additionally, he mentioned that the use of the term “other person” is too vague.
Rob Monson, from the School Administrators of South Dakota, expressed concern about the potential situation where enhanced permit holders could enter a school premises, such as a gymnasium hosting a high school basketball game, and assert their right to carry a concealed firearm.
According to Monson, there is a significant burden placed on the principal or the person authorizing the permit to make important decisions. They are responsible for verifying the identity and trustworthiness of the individual and determining whether the permit they are presenting is legitimate.
Democrat votes yes
Despite having concerns about the bill, several committee members ultimately voted in favor of it. They justified their decision by emphasizing their support for gun rights and their commitment to enhancing school safety.
Rep. Peri Pourier, the sole Democrat in the committee, cast one of the affirmative votes.
“I am a mother who lives with the constant worry of a school shooting happening,” expressed Pourier. “If I am unable to be there to protect my child, I would place my trust in individuals holding these enhanced permits.”
