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...
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? 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.
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.
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? 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.