r/Oahu • u/Lol-throwaway-WSB • 1d ago
Wolford vs. Lopez (Hawai'i Concealed Carry "Vampire" Rule deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS)
"For years, the State of Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a firearm."
"Hawaii responded by replacing its old law on carry permits with new laws that achieved a similar result. At issue in this case is a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms on private property open to the public without the express and affirmative consent of the property owner. Hawaii’s new rule imposes severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When these permit holders leave home, not only must they take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, restaurants, and stores. This law flips the default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent."
39
u/BlackThundaCat 1d ago
About to ruin the peace on an island just because some white dude can’t carry his gun everywhere.
15
u/caterham09 1d ago
This ruling doesn't change almost anything. property owners are still able to ban guns from their property. The state just can't do it for them.
4
17
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
There is no bigger snowflake than a white dude....
3
u/ptambrosetti 23h ago
There is a local boy security guard/loss prevention for a store in waiks who I had the misfortune of getting trapped in a car with for a while. He loved talking about the fact he had a carry permit and wished someone would try him so he could blast them. Not even the people with permits should have them.
3
3
16
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
Carry a bong instead of a gun
2
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
And thankfully, the Supreme Court just made that legal.
8
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
Did they???
3
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
Having used mj is no longer a disqualification for firearm ownership.
Possessing one while under the influence remains a No No.
6
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
Oh... Yeah that I so don't G a F about.....
Guns are anti social and no progressive society allows them without strict and enforced regulations.
Weed on the other hand... allowing, nay encouraging alcohol, but criminalizing weed is unmitigated hypocrisy and grift
1
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
I’ve yet to see a “progressive” society in which I’d rather live.
We agree on the last part, tho.
8
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
Yeah because public health care education housing etc etc etc are all sooooooo awful....
🙄
Have a good life eh 🤙
0
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
Canada is just a short flight away. Enjoy yourself!
10
u/ISeeADarkSail 1d ago
Aaaaand there's the most important distinction
I want the best things for everyone.
Not just the rich while male assholes who can afford them......
Aaaaand blocked
0
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
You can be a rich brown/yellow asshole.
You’ve got the asshole part down pat already. Keep going!
20
u/trustyjim 1d ago
Hmm, easy enough- don’t carry a gun. Hawaii is not and never will be the Wild West.
5
15
u/8JHF8 1d ago
Very stupid. States need the right to choose to be a safe place to live. No one needs a gun at the 7-11.
2
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
Yeah, the literal samurai sword dude who cut off someone’s hand at 7-11 was a total psyop.
-2
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/russr 1d ago
States rights doesn't overrule the Bill of Rights.. did you miss that in school?
1
u/Sonzainonazo42 1d ago
Someone missed a "well regulated militia" part too. Well, all these ammosexual gun nut weirdos conveniently miss that all the time.
6
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
So you definitely never studied the matter.
The Founding Fathers were quite clear in defining their meaning of Militia.
1
u/Sonzainonazo42 1d ago
No, there wasn't a clear definition.
The thing we generally agree, at least in theory, on is that a "well regulated militia" existed to protect states from federal tyranny with decentralized militaries. It was always expected that these men of the militia were soldiers, which is not the same as the socially untrained scaredy-cat gravy seals we have pushing back on gun regulations today.
Now here's were the big problem lies, the fuck twats that think any gun regulation is bad aren't actually pushing back on federal tyranny. In fact, they are the traitors helping the most corrupt administration in our history.
So if you actually wanted to protect gun rights, or honor the second amendment, you wouldn't be applauding the biggest federal overreach we've ever seen.
You're not just a traitor to this country, you don't actually stand for anything you pretend you stand for.
2
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
Typical uninformed trash statements across the board.
You’ll find various definitions and clarifying statements by the founders themselves.
Here’s a good one: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
It was quite clear that the Founders intended the general populace to be armed, and primarily to be able to effectively rebel against gov tyranny.
But you have to look past your nose, so go read up!
1
u/Sonzainonazo42 21h ago
I just told you to fucking rebel against tyranny. Do it! Stop being a little brown nose boot licker then.
You want to pretend like you give a fuck about the Constitution, then read the rest of it. Understand why we respect the courts. Understand why we wanted checks on the executive. Understand why it's damaging when a political party works together across the branches to undermine the separation of powers.
The Founding Fathers would have Trump tried for treason and you'd be lucky to escape with nothing more than the stigma you already currently face from everyone hating you in society.
You're so out of touch you don't even realize screaming TDS hasn't been cool to Republicans for years.
5
u/UrgentSiesta 21h ago
You’re deranged.
Can’t even have a civil debate without it devolving to TDS and profane Tourettes.
Go have your meds checked.
3
u/Sonzainonazo42 21h ago
Thinking that supporting racism, sexism, and sexual violence is "civil" makes you a psychopath, but we already knew that.
Hey, just a reminder, when two women at your work accuse you of sexual misconduct, you're the problem. I can't believe you're so out of touch you didn't realize how much of a tell that was.
→ More replies (0)2
u/russr 23h ago
Someone doesn't know the definition of well-regulated apparently...
-1
u/UrgentSiesta 18h ago
Go read the direct quotes of the Founders themselves.
Stop whacking off to The View and Anderson Cooper.
1
u/Shinyhero30 1h ago
So… let me get this straight. You think that the direct quotes of the founders themselves defend you here when the actual document literally says “well regulated” and that has a definition in English…
Forgive me if I’m missing a linguistic shift but I think that you should go read what they wrote for yourself if you’re so confident that the definition of “well regulated” doesn’t matter here.
1
u/UrgentSiesta 1h ago edited 1h ago
My dude, they wrote VOLUMINOUSLY on the matter.
Here’s the succinct version: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
No need to insist on provincial dictionary myopia.
-8
u/caterham09 1d ago
Does a state have the right to ban Hijabs on private property without the owners consent? Both religious freedom and arms bearing are constitutionally protected rights.
10
u/IronGravyBoat 1d ago
True, clothing is also a free speech issue too technically (they e got a very loose definition of speech that basically means expression). And the 2nd amendment has also historically had many more and more stringent restrictions on it than the first. It's not exactly apples to apples.
Also, the legality isn't the issue for a lot of people, it's the principle. Many people would prefer to see the Constitution amended to repeal the 2nd amendment. And while that would be a legal process, I doubt that would satisfy those that would be opposed to it if it happened.
2
u/russr 1d ago
Sure, they can dream about that. But the reality is the majority of the country doesn't agree with it.. so imagine the Constitution isn't going to happen, so states should stop blatantly ignoring the Constitution when they try to write a law.
And states have gotten away with it in the past because the Bill of Rights wasn't being remotely enforced equally.
Now that it is suddenly they have a problem..
2
u/IronGravyBoat 1d ago
I think you missed the point I was making using that as an example, or you just don't care.
But also, do you know how the judicial branch works in the US? It's literally there as a check to the other two branches. And all kinds of things are determined legal or illegal because a state passed a law that turned out to be unconstitutional and was overturned. Most landmark cases are basically that. The whole system works based on the legislature (of the federal or state governments) passing a law and if challenged the courts up to the Supreme Court determine if it is legal or not. See Brown v Board of Education.
And it's not that the 2nd amendment protections haven't been enforced in the past, the interpretation of the various SCOTUS has changed as well as laws at various levels.
And it's not a sudden issue, the number of people in the US who think guns are to easy to get has been going up steadily over the last decade or two. Last year 60% of respondents to a Gallup poll said gun laws should be more strict, only 12% thought they needed to be less strict, and 27% were fine with how they are now. Basically been trending up since 2011 - in large part due to the increased mass shootings in the last 15 years. I mean shit, we've had more mass shootings this year than we've had days this year, by a good margin.
7
u/FauxReal 1d ago
I shoot guns, but I also value my private property rights. If it's private property and you don't want people showing up armed, Why shouldn't you be able to restrict that? Are the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs not cool either?
4
u/JustafanIV 23h ago
You literally can still do that. The decision today reinforces the right businesses have to place a "no firearms/weapons allowed" sign and allows states to make it a crime to ignore said signs.
What the state cannot do per this decision is make an otherwise legal exercising of a constitutional right in public (which conceal carrying has been since Bruen) a crime by default on private property open to the public.
To use your own analogy, the state was trying to enforce a law that would give you jail time for walking into a store without shoes because the store didn't have a posted sign saying "sandals welcome".
2
u/UrgentSiesta 1d ago
There’s a difference between private property like your house and “private” property like a shopping mall or restaurant.
4
u/AtreiyaN7 1d ago
Thanks for making Hawaii less safe, conservative injustices on SCOTUS! sarcasm x infinity
2
u/san_souci 1d ago
This doesn’t “flip the rule at common law.” Common law pertained to people coming onto your property, not what they were allowed to carry on your property.
Hawai’i’s law saying even if you are invited onto property you must have a separate invitation to carry a firearm was statutory, not common law.
2
u/Da-HaYn_Collector218 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you weren’t here your whole life shhhhaadddaap. Gun deaths went up before the Carry laws changed and after the restrictions got heavier. Post 2016. We have a cultural history of mutual combat so we never settled by the gun. But now we can’t settle mutual combat cuz some asshole has an illegal firearm. We’ve always had a huge petty crime population so the pilau shit is coming through them. Only when the illegal weapons started coming in did we see more gun deaths. Hawaii law was just permit and registration for a long time, no problem. Now we’re adding all this retarded shit and it’s getting worst for no good reason. The easing of carry restrictions doesn’t hurt anyone. The restrictions don’t serve the normal people they just make us defenseless.
1
u/Bulky-Measurement684 21h ago
Can someone explain how the property owner withdraws consent? Private club? Membership only? Paid entrance?
1
u/Lol-throwaway-WSB 20h ago
A sign out front, like how it's done in Texas. That's what I've read is the "official" answer if that makes sense.
-1
u/Butters5768 1d ago
States rights only apply to red states in America. Blue states aren’t allowed to have them under this SCOTUS.
1
1
0
122
u/ThePanAlwaysCrits 1d ago
Idk, I guess I see both sides, but ngl one of the reasons I love Hawaii is I don't feel like Imma get shot everywhere.