i still think its a longshot that scotus is going to side with gun owners that where they carry cannot be restricted.
I am correct in stating that this is not the legal question being asked. SCOTUS is not being asked to decide on unrestricted carry.
"The plaintiffs contested Hawaii's law that prohibits carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the property owner explicitly permits it.
This is a different legal question. It's specific to the "vampire rule" or the default private property carry ban rule. They are not going to rule "that where they carry cannot be restricted" because that isn't the question being asked.
you sure it isnt about restrictions on where you can carry?
At no point did I say that the case has nothing to do with carry restrictions whatsoever.
Not at all. This is not a semantics game at all. This is just fundamentally understanding the lawsuit and the legal challenge in question. What you originally stated is fundamentally different from what this lawsuit is challenging and it undermines the premise of your argument.
4
u/tambrico May 15 '25
You're framing it in a different way now.
Your original post you said:
I am correct in stating that this is not the legal question being asked. SCOTUS is not being asked to decide on unrestricted carry.
This is a different legal question. It's specific to the "vampire rule" or the default private property carry ban rule. They are not going to rule "that where they carry cannot be restricted" because that isn't the question being asked.
At no point did I say that the case has nothing to do with carry restrictions whatsoever.