Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii limit on carrying guns onto private property
www.jurist.org
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...
    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      3 months

      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?

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        3 months

        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.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          3 months

          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

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              3 months

              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.