Good.

It’s so difficult to get a license there it’s ridiculous. Few have it. The state is so liberal. I’d say 5X-10X worse than California.

The law was always on shaky ground from the inception where the state could mandate default weapon prohibition on private property without first consulting the property owner.

The sensitive areas prohibition still stands.

In the end, at most, private property owners can post conspicuous signs prohibiting weapons and if they do find someone with one, they will be trespassed.

I've only seen one sign in CA but I'm guessing that most CCW holders would just ignore it because concealed means concealed.

Signs have no force of law here. But, that might be the next shoe to drop… A law just like Arizona

Almost every liberal dissent from this court falls into one of two categories. It's either ideology over law or stupidity over logic. Pretty much every time, and often a mix of the two.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I've only seen one sign in CA but I'm guessing that most CCW holders would just ignore it because concealed means concealed.

It is interesting that in CA it is only trespass if you are “caught” carrying and refuse to leave if asked. As antigun as the commies in Sacramento are, this is a welcome surprise. In some other states, it is actually a crime to carry on private property posted against carry. It is interesting (and important to research prior to travel) how the laws are different in different states, not always as expected.

quote:

Originally posted by Lineman101:
Signs have no force of law here. But, that might be the next shoe to drop… A law just like Arizona

Interestingly, Arizona ARS 4-229(C)2(b) reads “(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.” Seems to exempt nonresidents from some prohibitions on carry. Wanna bet this will be missing should the folks in Sacramento decide to adopt something similar?

Those who support the clear language of the Second Amendment are most fortunate to have the current conservative Supreme Court.

In the spirit of Aloha, I say "Aloha" to this stupid restriction.

I get the idea Hawaiians had that "Hawaii is different", I mean I lived there for five years, it IS different. But the Constitution is THE SAME. Judge Barrett's analogy (in her concurrence) to banning wearing a hijab is exactly on point. Freedom is freedom no matter what Amendment you are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by abnmacv:
Those who support the clear language of the Second Amendment are most fortunate to have the current conservative Supreme Court.

Mark Brown explains how even Katanj Brown Chirp Jackson's dissent supports plain text interpretation of 2A, placing the burden on the State and not The People. It's been a pretty good week.

Shall..Not..Be..Infringed

They're really trying to capture the whole 'Spirit of Aloha' as a legally-binding concept or theory as a valid argument.