Supreme Court, Hawaii can't ban concealed carry on private property

[August West]

I have a better idea:

View attachment 1273183

Goodby, Junior.

He who fights and runs away, will live to fight (and lose) another day.

 

[Dante]

Dumb shit, I don't see anything about that in this ruling. And nothing you believe about guns is true or factual, in fact, the opposite is usually true.

Meanwhile, in the real world, allowing people to go into bars with their guns, but not drinking, has reduced violence at bars.

From Chat GPT:

========

• South Carolina changed its law in 2014 to allow permit holders to carry in establishments serving alcohol if they did not drink and if the business didn't prohibit firearms.
• After the change, opponents predicted more shootings, while supporters pointed out that such shootings did not materialize at the levels predicted.
• Tennessee passed a law in 2009 allowing handgun permit holders to carry in restaurants and bars that serve alcohol, provided the carrier was not drinking. Supporters later pointed to the absence of a surge in bar violence as evidence the law was safe.
• Texas has long allowed licensed carry in many establishments that serve alcohol, though not in businesses where more than 51% of revenue comes from alcohol sales ("51% establishments," essentially bars). Some advocates cited falling crime trends after expansions of carry rights, but researchers disagreed about whether the gun laws caused the decline.
• ==========

We all know that AI hallucinates.

 

[braalian]

It’s a good thing we have federal courts to make sure states don’t abuse their power and trample their citizens’ constitutional rights

Isn’t it?

 

[Dante]

Forget the OP's Townhall article(s) on this.

Holding​

Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046)

Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second a…

www.scotusblog.com

1st vs 2nd?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled (yet?), on whether the public has a constitutional First Amendment right to protest on private property, even if that property is open to the public (such as a privately owned shopping mall or retail store).

There is this...

Federal Precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Hudgens v. NLRB that the First Amendment does not apply to private property owners, meaning businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.

But:
The current Supreme Court (split decision), does say gun owners don't need to get permission before carrying a firearm onto private property like grocery stores, coffee shops and gas stations that are otherwise open to the public.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not a bad decision IMHO.

The problem with the legislation it required a positive action by property owners to allow firearms on their property. Without that express active affirmation, then the law was violated.

I can see Hawaii trying again but flipping the language. Instead of requiring active affirmation of allowing firearms to be carried, flip the language to specificall allow property owners to deny access to firearms. Then allow private property owners to post appropriate signage at entrances/exits for public notification.

Without such an action then firearm carry is assumed allowed, like I said - they will probably try again but by flipping the language.

WW

Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii gun restriction

www.scotusblog.com

 

[August West]

It’s a good thing we have federal courts to make sure states don’t abuse their power and trample their citizens’ constitutional rights

Isn’t it?

AS long as they`re members of a well-regulated militia, they`ll be okay. Who is your commander and where do you train?

 

[M14 Shooter]

1st vs 2nd?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled (yet?), on whether the public has a constitutional First Amendment right to protest on private property, even if that property is open to the public (such as a privately owned shopping mall or retail store).

There is this...

Federal Precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Hudgens v. NLRB that the First Amendment does not apply to private property owners, meaning businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.

But:
The current Supreme Court (split decision), does say gun owners don't need to get permission before carrying a firearm onto private property like grocery stores, coffee shops and gas stations that are otherwise open to the public.

Its only confusing for people who do not understand, or choose to not understand what non sequitur means.

When you present the information correctly and honestly,. you get this:
1st Amendment: Businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.
2nd Amendment: Businesses can restrict or ban carrying firearms on their premises.
... from which the obvious questions springs:
What's the problem?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s a good thing we have federal courts to make sure states don’t abuse their power and trample their citizens’ constitutional rights
Isn’t it?

Democrat-run states keep these courts in business.

 

[2aguy]

I have no respect for gun pussies who are afraid to leave home without their gun tucked in their bra. How much money have you spent on guns and how many bad guys have you dropped? Most of my fellow steelworkers owned guns for hunting and/or home protection, but cowboy wannabes were rare.

Wow.....that was a stupid post. Considering how many women are being raped by illegal alien criminals, as well as other criminals in the democrat party controlled cities....they would be well advised to own and carry a gun.

 

[2aguy]

What is interesting is the divided court. This court majority has seemed to ignore precedent(s). So...

No, they haven't. The democrat party Justices continue to ignore the Constitution.

 

[braalian]

I support the second amendment, but the belief that people need to carry a gun on them at all times is paranoid

It’s your right, but it’s paranoid

 

[2aguy]

1st vs 2nd?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled (yet?), on whether the public has a constitutional First Amendment right to protest on private property, even if that property is open to the public (such as a privately owned shopping mall or retail store).

There is this...

Federal Precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Hudgens v. NLRB that the First Amendment does not apply to private property owners, meaning businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.

But:
The current Supreme Court (split decision), does say gun owners don't need to get permission before carrying a firearm onto private property like grocery stores, coffee shops and gas stations that are otherwise open to the public.

Carrying a gun on your person, is not the same as a public protest.

 

[Dante]

Its only confusing for people who do not understand, or choose to not understand what non sequitur means.

When you present the information correctly and honestly,. you get this:
1st Amendment: Businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.
2nd Amendment: Businesses can restrict or ban carrying firearms on their premises.
... from which the obvious questions springs: What's the problem?

Federal Precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Hudgens v. NLRB that the First Amendment does not apply to private property owners, meaning businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.

---------

Updated on June 25

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for gun owners to bring their guns onto private property that is open to the public unless they have the property owner’s specific consent. In Wolford v. Lopez, by a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with a group of Maui residents with concealed-carry permits that the law violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Thursday’s decision will have an impact not only in Hawaii, but also in four other states – California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey – with similar laws.

In his 24-page opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, countered that the law “fairly applies a first principle of property law—the right to exclude—and does no harm to the Second Amendment.”

 

[2aguy]

I support the second amendment, but the belief that people need to carry a gun on them at all times is paranoid

It’s your right, but it’s paranoid

Paranoid? No. The same way you look both ways before you cross the street is not being paranoid.

 

[Dante]

Carrying a gun on your person, is not the same as a public protest.

1st & 2nd guaranteed rights

How are the rights different?

Supreme Court Overturns Hawaii Gun Law

The case involved a Second Amendment challenge to a Hawaii law that barred carrying concealed weapons without permission onto private property open to the public.

www.nytimes.com

 

[2aguy]

Federal Precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court established in cases like Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Hudgens v. NLRB that the First Amendment does not apply to private property owners, meaning businesses can restrict or ban political protests and demonstrations on their premises.

---------

Updated on June 25

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for gun owners to bring their guns onto private property that is open to the public unless they have the property owner’s specific consent. In Wolford v. Lopez, by a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with a group of Maui residents with concealed-carry permits that the law violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Thursday’s decision will have an impact not only in Hawaii, but also in four other states – California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey – with similar laws.

In his 24-page opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, countered that the law “fairly applies a first principle of property law—the right to exclude—and does no harm to the Second Amendment.”

And that is not the same as a private individual carrying private property with them onto someone else's private property.

 

[2aguy]

1st & 2nd guaranteed rights

How are the rights different?

A public protest on private property takes up physical space. Carrying your legal property with you does not.

 

[Dante]

And that is not the same as a private individual carrying private property with them onto someone else's private property.

Huh?

 

[Dante]

A public protest on private property takes up physical space. Carrying your legal property with you does not.

wtf?

Was that even argued in the Court. such nonsense.

 

[braalian]

Paranoid? No. The same way you look both ways before you cross the street is not being paranoid.

It’s not the same thing at all.

If you just cross traffic without looking you’ll be dead or seriously injured within the week

I’ve never found myself in a situation where I’ve needed a gun to protect me. And I’ve had jobs that place me in the roughest neighborhoods many times