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...
you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.
Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.
Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.
A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state
You’re still not under burden to prove you have a right, they have to prove you don’t. And its legally required public accommodations vs private citizen, this bill ONLY deals with private property that allows the public there, like storefronts. Under law these places need to provide what they call public accommodation.
Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
I literally said this in this very thread. That’s why this law doesn’t prevent businesses from banning guns on the premise. Literally all it does is make it so they can’t get in trouble if they walk onto property open to the public that no one has proactively declared a gunfree zone. If the property has posted that guns arent allowed, then they’re still not allowed. If the business owner verbally says you cant carry here, they have to leave or secure the weapon elsewhere. All it does is say they can’t face consequences until someone tells them it’s not allowed, rather than assuming they’re unwelcome everywhere until otherwise told.
This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.
Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.
A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
You’re still not under burden to prove you have a right, they have to prove you don’t. And its legally required public accommodations vs private citizen, this bill ONLY deals with private property that allows the public there, like storefronts. Under law these places need to provide what they call public accommodation.
I literally said this in this very thread. That’s why this law doesn’t prevent businesses from banning guns on the premise. Literally all it does is make it so they can’t get in trouble if they walk onto property open to the public that no one has proactively declared a gunfree zone. If the property has posted that guns arent allowed, then they’re still not allowed. If the business owner verbally says you cant carry here, they have to leave or secure the weapon elsewhere. All it does is say they can’t face consequences until someone tells them it’s not allowed, rather than assuming they’re unwelcome everywhere until otherwise told.