The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law requiring licensed permit holders to obtain a property owner's express permission before carrying a firearm onto private property open to the...
Gun free zones are still fine as long as there are signs or rules from the property owner.
Im curious what to you is nuts about not haveing to find and contact the owner of a public storefront before entering that public place when there are no posted signs or rules about guns?
Either way, its not a violation of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment ensures the right to bear arms. And nobody contests that the property owner is allowed to ban guns on their property. That is not in question
So it comes down what the property owner defaults to if they dont put up a sign. Its literally just whether stores allow guns by default. The 10th amendment reserves that power to the state of Hawaii.
It flips the burden of responsibility. You have a second amendment right to carry a gun but with that right comes the responsibility of ensuring you do not violate others rights with it. If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure others know they aren’t a threat.
If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent.
Considering this law is about licensed permit holders and public spaces I would say that’s extremely unreasonable to assume. Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they’re allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one
Someone owning a bit of paper with “the NRA spent billions to make sure I get to carry around my penis replacement” on it does not in any way indicate that they are safe to be around.
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter, but do you even know what the process in HI is or are you from a different state?
But still, none of what you said makes it okay to assume someone doing something they’re allowed to do in a place they’re allowed to do it is thete to comitt a crime. Is that the power you want to give the goverment? Allowing them to percieve anyone as a threat for exercising rights they have? I don’t think you could impliment a law like that without extreme potential for abuse and confusion around enforcememt. Not every law that targets ‘bad’ things is a good law.
If you think the permits are too easy to get that’s an entirely seperate issue you cannot solve with either way this SC decision would go.
Gun free zones are still fine as long as there are signs or rules from the property owner.
Im curious what to you is nuts about not haveing to find and contact the owner of a public storefront before entering that public place when there are no posted signs or rules about guns?
Either way, its not a violation of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment ensures the right to bear arms. And nobody contests that the property owner is allowed to ban guns on their property. That is not in question
So it comes down what the property owner defaults to if they dont put up a sign. Its literally just whether stores allow guns by default. The 10th amendment reserves that power to the state of Hawaii.
It flips the burden of responsibility. You have a second amendment right to carry a gun but with that right comes the responsibility of ensuring you do not violate others rights with it. If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure others know they aren’t a threat.
Considering this law is about licensed permit holders and public spaces I would say that’s extremely unreasonable to assume. Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they’re allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one
deleted by creator
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter, but do you even know what the process in HI is or are you from a different state?
But still, none of what you said makes it okay to assume someone doing something they’re allowed to do in a place they’re allowed to do it is thete to comitt a crime. Is that the power you want to give the goverment? Allowing them to percieve anyone as a threat for exercising rights they have? I don’t think you could impliment a law like that without extreme potential for abuse and confusion around enforcememt. Not every law that targets ‘bad’ things is a good law.
If you think the permits are too easy to get that’s an entirely seperate issue you cannot solve with either way this SC decision would go.
deleted by creator