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...
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 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.
An empty house is not a public space where the public is allowed to enter without consent. So this is a terrible analogy.
A bike is not public property that the public is allowed to ride off with without consent. So this is a terrible analogy.
Dining and dashing is not a public right that the public is allowed to do. So this is a terrible analogy.
You may disagree with the constitution or with how courts have consistently interpreted the constitution over the last 100 years, but the Supreme Court has consistently decided that being able to carry a gun in public spaces is a right. I certainly don’t agree with allowing people to carry guns everywhere in public, but that is the law we have.
How do you know a house is not a public space? How do you know a bike is not public property? How do I know the restaurant expected me to wait to pay? We know because by default you do not have permission to do these things without explicit permission. The rights of the owner supercede the rights of a random member of the public by default. Private property law applies even if they private property has a public use.
We have a right to freedom of religion. That doesn’t mean I can erect a cross on the front lawn of a McDonalds just because there is no sign saying I can’t.
The court defends gun rights here in a way they would not defend any other constitutional right.
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.
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.
An empty house is not a public space where the public is allowed to enter without consent. So this is a terrible analogy.
A bike is not public property that the public is allowed to ride off with without consent. So this is a terrible analogy.
Dining and dashing is not a public right that the public is allowed to do. So this is a terrible analogy.
You may disagree with the constitution or with how courts have consistently interpreted the constitution over the last 100 years, but the Supreme Court has consistently decided that being able to carry a gun in public spaces is a right. I certainly don’t agree with allowing people to carry guns everywhere in public, but that is the law we have.
How do you know a house is not a public space? How do you know a bike is not public property? How do I know the restaurant expected me to wait to pay? We know because by default you do not have permission to do these things without explicit permission. The rights of the owner supercede the rights of a random member of the public by default. Private property law applies even if they private property has a public use.
We have a right to freedom of religion. That doesn’t mean I can erect a cross on the front lawn of a McDonalds just because there is no sign saying I can’t.
The court defends gun rights here in a way they would not defend any other constitutional right.
Oh well, don’t go inside.
Or be a normal fucking person and leave the instrument of death behind.
I agree. That should absolutely be how people in a good civilization act. I’m only saying the law as written was not very good.