This is to give coverage to ICE terrorists and January 6th Confederates. Bluehaired radical leftist transfolk, or anyone of decent character, should respond in kind.
So then why are they banned in federal buildings? If they are not dangerous allow them everywhere, hypocrites
they area also banned at REPUBLICAN events like cpac.
I mean in reality they are allowed in federal buildings, just not for citizens. They’re also banned at sporting events. I don’t think anyone is arguing guns aren’t dangerous any more then people argue cars aren’t dangerous, but we’re still allowed to legislate where you can and can’t drive. No ones saying ‘If cars are so safe why can’t I drive on the sidewalk?’ Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
Property owners are still free to make their property gun free zones, this decision just means you don’t need express conscent to enter if there’s no signage or rules stating that.
but we’re still allowed to legislate where you can and can’t drive. No ones saying ‘If cars are so safe why can’t I drive on the sidewalk?’
Just from a legal standpoint, that’s an especially bad example because nobody, anywhere in this country, has any right to drive anywhere, especially not a constitutionally-protected one. Driving is a privilege bestowed by the states.
In fact, if something so dangerous as driving a car is a highly regulated privilege, and not right, then maybe carrying a gun should be too.
What drives the rest of the world crazy, is Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government. Well guess what kind of government you have right now, and people aren’t doing shite.
and the ammo sexuals are 100% in goose step with the tyrannical government, because they think their end goal is being able to hunt down gays, liberals, trans people, etc like game animals.
Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government
That was only ever pro-gun misinformation to make unchecked private gun ownership sound not just reasonable, but HEROIC.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to provide assistance for national defense AGAINST rebellions as an alternative to a standing army.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to affirm the right of the “Militia” (i.e. the People) to defend the “free State” (i.e. themselves against tyranny).
The thing was written by people who had literally just finished rebelling against their legitimate government. You cannot credibly say they weren’t pro-rebellion.
the “Militia” (i.e. the
Peoplewell-regulated militias)Fixed it for you.
to defend the “free State” (i.e.
themselves against tyrannythe state against its enemies).Fixed that too.
People don’t tend to write laws in code, actually.
When you write “security of a free state” and “well-regulated militia” in a legally binding text, what you mean ISN’T “defense against an oppressive state” and “well-regulated militias” ISN’T “everyone, regardless of whether they’re in a well-regulated militia”.
To quote someone who was as wrong about it as you are but could turn a phrase sometimes, your interpretation is pure applesauce.
the “Militia” (i.e. the
Peoplewell-regulated militias)Fixed it for you.
Bullshit, I was right the first time. “Militia” means “every able-bodied adult male” and “well-regulated” means “well-trained.”
People don’t tend to write laws in code, actually.
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.
Bottom line is this: I’m right, you’re wrong, the end, bye-bye.
Except that, like so many others, they changed their tune as soon as they were the ones in power. See: whiskey rebellion
(this ignores even the vaguest hints of nuance, of course)
Well if were speaking legally one of those is legally protected by an amendment to the constitution and one is a privilege added far after the writing of the document. Its not the fault of the firearm that no one called a constitution convention about cars.
woosh
Ran out of rebuttal already?
rebut what? the fact that you completely misunderstood what I said?
I don’t feel like debating someone who clearly doesn’t understand me or the subject under discussion. it would bee exhausting and pointless, and I have better things to do.
So yes.
You literally have no rebuttal, argument, or defense.
“Hmph! Had enough of my wit?” they smugly replied with crossed arms, staring directly into the lifeless, beady eyes of a strawman. But rather than straw, it was excrement. And rather than the shape of a man, it instead was a toddler. Baffled onlookers wrinkled their noses before finding another place to be.
Unbothered by the foul odor or soiling on their hands and trousers, their chuckles echoed off the walls of an empty room. “These kids never learn,” they smirked.
You are replying to someone without reading their comment in the slightest
Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
That’s precisely my argument. I don’t think people need to be carrying them at all
‘This shouldn’t be allowed everywhere’ and ‘This should be allowed nowhere’ are not the same arguement though, I don’t see how my quote fits your argument at all tbh.
Why are guns only allowed places where they are not, yet they champion their rights every where else. They can’t have it both ways. Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn’t have them. I don’t know why there is this grey zone, that is conveniently where they happen to be at all times, yet we are the ones constantly put in danger due to the lax gun laws and regulations
Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn’t have them.
So your saying we should be able to carry guns either nowhere or everywhere?
Do you also believe we should be allowed to shout ‘fire!’ either everywhere or nowhere or do you think its okay that you can’t do that in crowded places when there’s no fire?
It is not a fringe opinion in the American gun space that all firearms should be allowed anywhere, all existing gun laws should be dismantled, and any politician who tries to legislate guns should be tried for treason, or just shot.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, because that is exactly the mindset the gun lobby has.
[Edit] And are spending their lobbying money on to try and get approved into legislation, I should add.
Wow what a shit take
deleted by creator
Let me guess, guns still banned from supreme court public events?
If it’s private property can’t the property owners just put up signs?
Yep thats literally all they need to do. This bill just means if theres no signs you can walk in a public place without first tracking down who the owner is and getting expressed consent from them.
Edit after re-reading the opinion a few times: Im pretty sure it doesn’t necessarily have to be a posted sign either. Roberts mentions carriers being welcome UNTIL consent is withdrawn. A buisness owner should be able to withdraw consent multiple ways; signs, publicly avaliable rules that may or may not be visually posted, or even verbally telling someone carrying is not allowed. If im interpreting correctly, I believe the majority is trying to say that you just can’t get in trouble for going in without first asking consent, but as soon as consent is known to you to be withdrawn, you’re still liable to follow those rules. Similar to if you were tresspassing somewhere that had no signs posted; no immediate trouble as long as you respect the owner should they inform you and ask you to leave.
In Poland, if you have a gun permit (which is hard to get) you have to follow many rules to carry it like you can’t drink alcohol if you have your gun on you or you have to wear lose clothes that cover the gun. This is common sense but it also makes carrying a gun inconvenient (no beer and long shirts even during summer) so that people only carry them if they have to, not for fun. Requiring consent does the same thing: it’s inconvenient to ask for consent all the time. Since Supreme Court is abolishing all the laws states can use to regulate guns they have to look for solutions like that. Small rules that limit the number of guns in the public places a bit. By abolishing all those rules the SC is just doing the bidding of the gun lobby and making sure people buy as many guns as possible.
It’s corruption, that’s all there is to it.
I guess in addition to “No soliciting” my front door sign will also have to say “No firearms”.
Not an expert in all the laws in Hawaii or the technical way this ones written, but this seems to target places that do buisness or are otherwise open to the general public. It would be much less of an undue burden to locate the owner of a private residence before entering and obtain consent, since you kind of need that to enter a persons home legally anyway. If Hawaii rewrote this law about private houses, Id be pissed too if they overturned it.
In the absense of that law existing though posting ‘no guns’ will likely be necessary as people can’t follow rules they dont know exists.
In Texas there is a law that only LEOs can carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from alcohol sales, and other businesses can post that firearms are not permitted. I’m curious how this ruling squares with those laws.
Because this law is about places that do not have signs. It’s the question of, “I have a gun and want to go into a store, but there is no sign saying “no guns” and I can’t find the owner. Who do I talk to so I can get agreement to come into the store?” This is not banning “no guns allowed” signs. It’s about having to ask permission of a person who may not even live in the state to enter a place that the public is allowed to enter.
I fucking hate people in this country.
Like “leave the gun in your fucking car you freak” isn’t an option?
but the Texas law means you have to locate the owner AND ask for detailed sales records to determine if a business makes more than 50% of its revenue on alcohol.
Easily if you read the article. No one is banning gun free zones.
“states rights”
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that Hawaii had flipped the common-law rule under which anyone, including those lawfully armed, may enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. By requiring affirmative consent for firearms specifically, the Court reasoned, the state imposed a “new and significant burden” on permit holders, who would otherwise risk criminal liability merely by entering gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores and other everyday businesses without a posted welcome.
So, either we’re allowed to bring guns anywhere including federal buildings, or guns are only allowed to be blanket banned from buildings.
He said ‘Unless the owner withdraws consent’ that does not mean everywhere or nowhere. You dont have to look hard for honest critisicm of Roberts but pretending like hes saying there are no more gun free zones isn’t helping, its misinformation.
The Hawaiian law was withdrawal of consent though.
Gun owner: “Can I be here with my gun?”
Business owner: “No, weapons aren’t allowed here. Leave it in your vehicle.”
Roberts: “UNDUE BURDEN”
The undue burden was finding the owner and asking him, not putting the gun away. If the place has posted rules about not allowing guns, then it is still a gun free zone. That has not changed and is stated in the article. If an owner verbally says its a gun free zone then you still have to comply as well. Its the same way you cannot get in trouble for tresspassing places where there are no signs posted, but if asked to leave upon being informed you are indeed tresspassing, you still have to leave. This is what Roberts means when he mentions the owner withdrawing consent. This ruling is fairly consistent with the precedents set throughout US law. It simply says you’re allowed to be there ubtil someone makes it know to you that your are not, instead lf having to assume you are allowed nowhere.
As a pro second-amendment libertarian… this is nuts. Impeach and limit.
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?
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
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
This info is available to anyone I’m pretty sure. If it’s not posted online or literally on the front door, then an employee would give you the info.
I honestly don’t fucking care if you have a hard time getting in touch with the owner. If that’s the case, then either leave your firearm in the car, or go away you weak fucking loser.
Aw poor baby needs his guns on him at all times?
Listen, I own guns. I like basically anything that fires any kind of projectile. I’ve got bows and slingshots and BB guns and air rifles. I think all these things are totally reasonable to own.
However, anyone with half a functioning brain should be able to easily understand why guns are incredibly threatening.
When you want to play cowboy and carry around a gun you need to understand that you live in a world where public shootings happen all the fucking time. Assuming someone is carrying because they intend to do harm is entirely reasonsble and the only safe assumption one can make.
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.
If you want the extraordinary privilege of carrying around something that can kill indiscriminately, you should be willing to take the extraordinary responsibility of going out of your way to keep everyone around you feeling safe. If you aren’t willing to do this you’ve kind of already indicated you’re a potential threat.
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.
Is that the power you want to give the goverment?
This is the power I want to give to restaurant and store owners. The rank hypocrisy I see on these topics is just stunning. “You can’t force a store owner to make a cake for the gays but you can force them to allow dangerous weapons into their place of business.”
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter…
Sure. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Let’s make it fucking hard to get a permit and let businesses owners decide if they’re allowed in.
Also, can I borrow several billion dollars to use in legal contests with extremely powerful lobbies? You must have it laying around with how simple you make it seem.
“You can’t force a store owner to make a cake for the gays but you can force them to allow dangerous weapons into their place of business.”
No one is forcing buisness owners to allow guns. The ruling specifically says if the owner withdraws consent, then you’re not allowed. This can be via posted signs, publicly avaliable rules, or even verbally. The only thing he says he disagrees with is making people asusme they’re not welcome until they are. Once a place of buisness demonstrates people carrying are not welcome, they’re not welcome. Why do you keep misrepresenting this fact?
And for what its worth gay is a protected status under civil rights laws and carry permit holder is not. They should have had to make that cake, or at least be financially liable to the party they wronged.
Also, can I borrow several billion dollars to use in legal contests with extremely powerful lobbies? You must have it laying around with how simple you make it seem.
Citizens lobbying exists, grass roots campaigns exist you don’t need to spend billions. Beyond that weather you want to challenge this decision or work on the permit laws you will still need to do organizing work, that doesn’t change based on what you choose to focus on. Up to you where you want to spend your efforts, Im just trying to help but if you don’t trust me so be it.
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.
This is not about walking into a place armed without consent. This is about the fact that it can be impossible to get consent. It might be perfectly fine with the owner of the property, but a legal carrier of a gun in a public place that allows legal carrying of guns has no way to gain that consent.
This still allows store owners to put up a No Guns sign. This ruling is saying that for stores that do NOT have a No Guns sign then the assumption is that people who are legally allowed to carry guns in public are allowed to exercise that legal approval. Hawaii’s law was that a person had to go find the owner of the property before going where other members of the public are allowed to go without asking permission.
As far as assuming someone has malicious intent simply for carrying a gun in public, I think that is a bad assumption in the US. I know you have the caveat of “without consent,” but this ruling is about the inability to give or receive consent. So any assumption is out the door.
This is about the fact that it can be impossible to get consent
Oh well, don’t go inside.
Or be a normal fucking person and leave the instrument of death behind.
This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.
Correct. I think that in absence of consent it is absurd to default to remaining armed.
I can’t walk into an empty house whenever I want because there is no one to ask for consent. I can’t ride off with a bike left on the street because there is no owner around. I can’t leave a restaurant after eating because I can’t immediately find someone to give me a check. The default cannot be that your rights supersede others unless they are actively defending them. This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.
I don’t think it realy actually has much to do with guns. It’s about privacy. Something the Supreme Court has been trying to murder for the last 50 years.
Don’t get me wrong, I do see the gun owners arguments here. What’s wrong with putting up a sign? That’s a legitimate point. But the law itself and the Supreme Court challenge brings it into a different Realm. If the owner of a private domicile or business wants it to be different, they want to have individual decision making on a case-by-case basis, why shouldn’t they? It’s their private home or business and they can do what they want shouldn’t they?
