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...
Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they’re allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
That’s just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn’t have it. It’s on the gun owner to prove they aren’t a threat.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
Call ahead. Or just don’t carry the gun if you don’t know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.
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
The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It’s more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you.
That’s just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn’t have it. It’s on the gun owner to prove they aren’t a threat.
This is not how law works, you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it. This is not going to change based on which right it is, thats literally totalitarian. Arguing for ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is not going to get you far.
Call ahead. Or just don’t carry the gun if you don’t know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.
The McDonalds owner? You think hes in the back making fries? And for the third time THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It’s about specifically privately owned property THAT IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. These places, unlike strictly private property, legally MUST follow whats called public accomodation. Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.
The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It’s more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you
The existence of a parking lot is not a sign. Parking on someones lawn is not the same considering someones private lawn has no obligation to follow public accommodations, but private buisness open to the public DO have to follow public accommodations.
You’re misunderstanding how the law works and it’s eating all your effort on a bill that likely wouldn’t have survived even a balanced supreme court. When I told you to consider legislating from the permit side it wasn’t to dismiss you, it was because that’s a much more fiesable avenue to survive court challenges, as well as more enforceable laws, and I believe more impactful ones too. You’ll feel better being able to actually make headway. I may not agree with you %100 but im not lying about that being a more open avenue for changes and I know what it’s like feeling like you can’t do anything about a problem important to you, just trying to point you in the right direction. Id hoenstly bet there’s at lesst a handful of gun control we’d even agree on tbh, I promise I’m not here just to disagree with everything.
you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.
Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.
Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.
A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state
You’re still not under burden to prove you have a right, they have to prove you don’t. And its legally required public accommodations vs private citizen, this bill ONLY deals with private property that allows the public there, like storefronts. Under law these places need to provide what they call public accommodation.
Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
I literally said this in this very thread. That’s why this law doesn’t prevent businesses from banning guns on the premise. Literally all it does is make it so they can’t get in trouble if they walk onto property open to the public that no one has proactively declared a gunfree zone. If the property has posted that guns arent allowed, then they’re still not allowed. If the business owner verbally says you cant carry here, they have to leave or secure the weapon elsewhere. All it does is say they can’t face consequences until someone tells them it’s not allowed, rather than assuming they’re unwelcome everywhere until otherwise told.
That’s just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn’t have it. It’s on the gun owner to prove they aren’t a threat.
Call ahead. Or just don’t carry the gun if you don’t know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.
The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It’s more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you.
This is not how law works, you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it. This is not going to change based on which right it is, thats literally totalitarian. Arguing for ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is not going to get you far.
The McDonalds owner? You think hes in the back making fries? And for the third time THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It’s about specifically privately owned property THAT IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. These places, unlike strictly private property, legally MUST follow whats called public accomodation. Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.
The existence of a parking lot is not a sign. Parking on someones lawn is not the same considering someones private lawn has no obligation to follow public accommodations, but private buisness open to the public DO have to follow public accommodations.
You’re misunderstanding how the law works and it’s eating all your effort on a bill that likely wouldn’t have survived even a balanced supreme court. When I told you to consider legislating from the permit side it wasn’t to dismiss you, it was because that’s a much more fiesable avenue to survive court challenges, as well as more enforceable laws, and I believe more impactful ones too. You’ll feel better being able to actually make headway. I may not agree with you %100 but im not lying about that being a more open avenue for changes and I know what it’s like feeling like you can’t do anything about a problem important to you, just trying to point you in the right direction. Id hoenstly bet there’s at lesst a handful of gun control we’d even agree on tbh, I promise I’m not here just to disagree with everything.
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.
Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.
A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
You’re still not under burden to prove you have a right, they have to prove you don’t. And its legally required public accommodations vs private citizen, this bill ONLY deals with private property that allows the public there, like storefronts. Under law these places need to provide what they call public accommodation.
I literally said this in this very thread. That’s why this law doesn’t prevent businesses from banning guns on the premise. Literally all it does is make it so they can’t get in trouble if they walk onto property open to the public that no one has proactively declared a gunfree zone. If the property has posted that guns arent allowed, then they’re still not allowed. If the business owner verbally says you cant carry here, they have to leave or secure the weapon elsewhere. All it does is say they can’t face consequences until someone tells them it’s not allowed, rather than assuming they’re unwelcome everywhere until otherwise told.