Rep. Jim Halverson, R-Winner, participates in a committee hearing on Jan. 20, 2026, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

PIERRE — A pair of questions that struck the bullseye contributed to a South Dakota legislative committee’s uncharacteristic rejection of two bills to roll back concealed gun laws Monday at the state Capitol.

The first bill would have relieved college students of the requirement to obtain a permit before carrying a concealed pistol on campus.

The questions came from House Education Committee member Jim Halverson, R-Winner, who opposed the bill. He directed the questions to Nathan Lukkes, who testified against the legislation.

Lukkes is the executive director and CEO of the Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s public universities. He said during his testimony that he’s taken the handgun training course required to obtain a permit, which includes shooting dozens of rounds.

Halverson wanted to know more about that.

“You’ve been through this course twice, you say, and you’ve been there when other people have been there doing the same thing,” Halverson said. “As they have started out, did they all hit the target right away?”

“Representative, no,” Lukkes said, causing laughter to erupt from the large audience in the committee room. “There’s a wide disparity of contact with the target as you work through the live-fire training exercise, with the different experiences and levels of understanding and exposure to firearms of individuals taking the course.”

Halverson wasn’t finished.

“So,” he continued, “if we take this enhanced permit away, will that automatically guarantee that these people that are carrying on campus that now have a permit — or don’t — they’re automatically going to be really good shooters?”

“Representative,” Lukkes answered, “this is one person’s opinion, but I would say no.”

More laughter broke out from the audience after that response. The exchange illustrated Halverson’s point about the dangers of people carrying and shooting guns on college campuses, and also carried the weight of the two men’s experiences handling guns. Halverson is a former state Highway Patrol trooper, and Lukkes served 10 years in the Army National Guard, including a deployment to Afghanistan.

The legislation, from Rep. Dylan Jordan, R-Clear Lake, would have allowed college students to carry a concealed handgun without an enhanced or restricted-enhanced permit from the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office. The qualifications include being at least 18 years old for the restricted-enhanced permit, or 21 for the enhanced permit, and completing a handgun course and passing a criminal background check.

Concealed carrying was not allowed on college campuses in South Dakota until last year, when the Legislature and Gov. Larry Rhoden adopted a law allowing it for permit holders (over the objections of Halverson, who voted no). The Republican-dominated Legislature also repealed the ban on concealed carrying in bars last year, and this year has already sent to the governor for his consideration a bill that would deregulate silencers.

South Dakota university system approves guns-on-campus policy to comply with new state law

Concealed carrying is generally allowed without a permit in South Dakota except in places where a permit and notice are required, such as the state Capitol, or in places where only approved people are allowed to carry guns, such as courthouses and schools.

During Jordan’s testimony, he said college students have a “God-given right to defend themselves” that should not be limited by a permit.

Opponents of the bill said the permit requirement is reasonable and ensures people who carry concealed weapons on a campus have training. That argument prevailed, and the committee voted 9-6 to defeat the bill.

The committee also rejected a bill from Rep. Kathy Rice, R-Black Hawk, that would have allowed any school employee 21 or older with an enhanced permit to carry or securely store a concealed pistol on school grounds after notifying local law enforcement, and would have relieved school districts of liability for any “damages or penalties resulting from the use of a firearm” by such an employee.

Opponents said the bill’s lack of notification to school officials would make schools more dangerous, and attempting to relieve schools of their liability for gun-carrying employees would be ineffective and unwise. Schools can already created a sentinel program that allows trained people to carry guns, and state law also already allows people 21 and older with an enhanced permit to carry a gun on school grounds with written permission from a superintendent or other person in charge.

As it was becoming clear Rice’s bill was headed for defeat, Jordan commented that “I didn’t know I was in Minnesota’s Education Committee” — a reference to the larger Democratic contingent in that state’s Legislature.

Jordan’s comment drew a point-of-order complaint from fellow committee member Amber Arlint, R-Sioux Falls, regarding the committee’s decorum rules. Committee Chairwoman Lana Greenfield, R-Doland, agreed and ruled Jordan out of order. The committee then voted 12-3 to reject Rice’s bill.