PIERRE, S.D. — In a notable session at the South Dakota state Capitol, the House Education Committee decisively rejected two controversial bills aimed at easing gun restrictions within educational settings. The session, held on February 3, 2026, saw heated debates and a critical examination of the proposed legislations, which ultimately resulted in their defeat.
Representative Jim Halverson, a seasoned member of the House Education Committee from Winner, played a pivotal role in challenging the bills. Halverson’s pertinent questioning of the bills’ proponents shed light on the potential risks of relaxing concealed carry laws on college campuses and in schools. His experience as a former state Highway Patrol trooper lent significant weight to his arguments.
The Debate Over Concealed Carry on College Campuses
Rep. Dylan Jordan, R-Clear Lake, introduced the first bill, HB 26800, which sought to eliminate the need for college students to acquire a permit before carrying a concealed weapon on campus. This proposal faced strong opposition, as opponents underlined the importance of maintaining rigorous training and permit requirements to ensure the safety of students and staff.
Nathan Lukkes, Executive Director and CEO of the South Dakota Board of Regents, testified against the bill. Drawing from his extensive experience with firearms, Lukkes emphasized the disparities in shooting accuracy observed during live-fire training exercises. He argued, “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.”
This testimony underscored the potential dangers of individuals carrying firearms without proper training, aligning with Halverson’s warning about the risks of untrained individuals on campuses.
Analyzing the Implications for Schools
The second bill, proposed by Rep. Kathy Rice, aimed to permit school employees with an enhanced concealed carry permit to bring pistols onto school grounds or store them securely after notifying local law enforcement. However, critics raised concerns about the absence of a requirement to inform school authorities, arguing it compromised the safety protocols of educational institutions.
An expert analysis of the bill, HB 27067, indicated that relieving school districts of liability for incidents related to firearms would be both imprudent and legally challenging. The bill also appeared to overlap with existing South Dakota law, which allows armed security measures through sentinel programs created by school districts in consultation with the state and local law enforcement.
The Role of Legislative Background in South Dakota
In recent years, South Dakota has undergone significant changes to firearm regulations. A 2025 law enabled permit holders to carry concealed firearms on college campuses, reversing an earlier prohibition. This legislative shift reflects a broader trend within the state to accommodate gun rights while balancing safety concerns.
Despite this, the South Dakota legislative committee took a firm stance against further loosening regulations in educational settings. The resistance to the bills was apparent in the voting outcomes: the proposed legislation by Jordan was defeated 9-6, while Rice’s bill faced a more decisive rejection at 12-3.
In an exchange that highlighted the tense atmosphere, Rep. Jordan quipped about the committee’s resemblance to the Minnesota Education Committee, noting Minnesota’s more left-leaning legislative composition. This comment drew a point-of-order complaint and was ruled out of order by Committee Chairwoman Lana Greenfield, R-Doland, reiterating the importance of decorum in legislative proceedings.
The effective questioning by Halverson and the testimony of experienced individuals like Lukkes contributed significantly to the decision-making process. As South Dakota continues to navigate its stance on gun control and individual rights, these discussions underscore the complexity of developing policies that safeguard its citizens while respecting constitutional liberties.
For further details on the developments within South Dakota’s legislative landscape, the Argus Leader and South Dakota Searchlight offer comprehensive coverage of political and community issues affecting the state.