This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/03/2025 6:59:49 AM PDT by gwjack
The Supreme Court took up its next Second Amendment case on Friday, agreeing to hear a challenge to Hawaii’s ban on carrying concealed weapons on private property without the owner’s express consent. Three Hawaii residents and a local gun rights group, backed by the Trump administration, urged the justices to review a lower ruling upholding the state’s law.
* * *
(More at link . . .)
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It appears the 2nd is totally (nearly) infringed upon in the islands.
It is, in general.
A friend lived there. He said, basically, the anti-firearms sentiment is attributable to the Japanese influence on society.
Separately, the article sucks: elsewhere it clarifies that “Hawaii law restricting the carrying of handguns on private property that is open to the public such as most businesses”.
That is WAY different vs coming to my barbecue and not knowing if my guest is armed; my property, my rights, my rules.
Hmmm
Private property might be a sticker. Some people have rights which shouldn’t ever be infringed on not even by private landowners, however in general, I actually agree with a person imposing conditions for people to be on their property. Not sure where the differences can lie. But trespassing is a thing and when you are on privately owned land some expectations and conditions should apply.
First Amendment — the specific wording says that CONGRESS shall make no law. It has, of course, been interpreted over the years that other levels of government are also blocked for censoring people. Free Speech was broadened.
Second Amendment — the specific wording is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It started off broad. Nobody gets to infringe. Infringement shall not be permitted. But over the years we’ve discovered a million ways to infringe and everybody at every level of society gets to have their two cents about “good” infringement. Self-defense was restricted.
The difference is private property where a service to the public is provided.
That’s the distinction came up during ERA in the 60s I think. Can’t exclude blacks from restaurants, etc..
It appears the 2nd is totally (nearly) infringed upon in the islands.
Where does the Second Amendment give someone the right to carry on private property if the owner says no?
“...Hawaii’s ban on carrying concealed weapons on private property without the owner’s express consent.”
What other rights does one need the owner’s express consent to exercise when on private property?
“I actually agree with a person imposing conditions for people to be on their property.”
Ideally, yes, and someday society might be ready for what you’re saying.
But, as I see it, the only way to EDUCATE Leftists that legal gun owners are not a threat is to make them live knowing that gun owners cannot be stopped from bringing a gun on to their property (I’m thinking in terms of businesses) - then they’ll learn (hopefully) that the way to prevent crime is NOT to block legal gun owners from their property, but rather to prosecute those who break the law.
...then, if they get the point, they’ll stop being IDIOTS thinking that legal gun owners are the problem, and ONLY THEN would I support the rights of property owners to exclude legal guns from being on their property.
There are likely some exceptions, where guns should still be prohibited, but I’d want them assessed case-by-case.
“Where does the Second Amendment give someone the right to carry on private property if the owner says no?”
The Hawaii law is an inversion of this. It says it is illegal to carry on private property unless owner posts a sign saying yes. Being presumptively illegal is the problem.
I think the brief from the DOJ explains the situation well, and the mainstream press is spreading FUD. Of course you are allowed to ban weapons from private property as an owner. That is not being disputed. The question is what is the default when permission is not explicitly denied.
From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise. And in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court confirmed that restrictions on carrying firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense violate the Second Amendment unless they fit within a discernible historical tradition.
Yet, after Bruen, five States, including Hawaii, inverted the longstanding presumption and enacted a novel default rule under which individuals may carry firearms on private property only if the owner provides express authorization, such as by posting a conspicuous sign allowing guns. Violations constitute misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison. Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot.
“What other rights does one need the owner’s express consent to exercise when on private property?”
They could tell you to remain mute. I wouldn’t be on anybody’s property who forbade any of these rights.
“They could tell you to remain mute. “
I thought “express consent to exercise” would mean I have to remain mute until I’m given express consent to speak.
On the other hand, I kind of expect I’m supposed to remain more or less mute during a concert, speech, movie, or other presentation so as not to disrupt the event. Well maybe not a rock concert.
Can’t these idiots read basic English? What don’t they understand about what infringed is.
This law basically outlaws carrying on any private property without pre approval of the landowner. This will get struck down.
24-1046 WOLFORD, JASON, ET AL. V. LOPEZ, ATT’Y GEN. OF HI
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Seems like a strange case to grant cert on.
Probably quartering soldiers in private homes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.