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...
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 Roberts mentions carriers being welcome UNTIL consent is withdrawn.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you just can’t get in trouble for going in without first asking consent, but as soon as consent is known to you to be withdrawn, you’re still liable to follow those rules.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.
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 Roberts mentions carriers being welcome UNTIL consent is withdrawn.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.