Supreme Court will hear challenge to Hawaii's gun law backed by Trump administration.

The Supreme Court is taking up another gun rights dispute in a case that could lead to more handguns in public places.

The court, which has made major expansions to gun rights in recent years, agreed on Oct. 3 to hear a Trump-backed challenge to gun restrictions in Hawaii that require a gun user obtain permission before venturing onto private property open to the public such as a business.

Hawaii and four other states led by Democrats − California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey − imposed new rules after the court in 2022 made it harder to restrict which individuals may arm themselves in public.

After such states lost most of their control over who could publicly carry guns, their focus turned to where in the public sphere they could bring them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...be415d78644b3a9fa691

The outcome will affect most liberal states on the country. Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington state. I may have missed a few, but the impact is huge for many.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
…to hear a Trump-backed challenge to gun restrictions in Hawaii that require a gun user obtain permission before venturing onto private property open to the public such as a business.

My gut feeling tells me we’re going to lose this.

quote:

The outcome will affect most liberal states on the country.

It will affect all 50 states. You think red state businesses don’t prohibit gun carrying on their premises?

quote:

...The court, which has made major expansions to gun rights in recent years...

https://www.usatoday.com/story...be415d78644b3a9fa691

This is pure propaganda. SCOTUS did not expand rights. They reduced unConstitutional restrictions on pre-existing rights.

This subtle propaganda to support a leftist agenda is effective with the masses. We must refute it.

Concealed means concealed. If they see you printing and ask you to leave, you have to leave. Property owner doesn't even need a reason. But if no one knows you're carrying, then you're doing it correctly. We have all kinds of non-compliant "no guns" signage in AZ. But it doesn't prevent the manager from asking you to leave if they know you're carrying. I've never heard of someone in AZ getting trespassed if they leave when asked. The cops don't just show up by surprise and cite you.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:...
It will affect all 50 states. You think red state businesses don’t prohibit gun carrying on their premises?

Yes, but a state law infringing on every non-prohibited gun owner in every (fill in the blank) where it is legal in many states, is a big difference than a business choosing to prohibit.

Like "State's Rights" "...are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large."

My take is the people should be "free to exercise", first, then the states, then the federal government, when the people then the state, so if businesses do not prohibit, then the state should not have the power (over the people), to prohibit, nor the federal government.

Unless I misunderstand the 10th.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

...The court, which has made major expansions to gun rights in recent years...

https://www.usatoday.com/story...be415d78644b3a9fa691

This is pure propaganda. SCOTUS did not expand rights. They reduced unConstitutional restrictions on pre-existing rights.

This subtle propaganda to support a leftist agenda is effective with the masses. We must refute it.

This is the kind of shuffling of the truth I wish I could immediately recognize without giving it a second thought. It trips me up more than I care to admit. But I guess that’s the point. Thank you Fly-Sig for pointing it out.

quote:

a case that could lead to more handguns in public places.

Oh horrors!

Don't forget to include the bare fact that more guns carried by the law abiding majority of citizens leads to less crime overall, and especially violent crime.

Now, doesn't the fact that the State has issued one a permit to carry a handgun imply that one has asked for permission and had it granted? Or does Hawaii ignore that stark reality?

I hope this has some positive outcomes, however small they might be. At least to break some momentum of right erosion. It’s beyond ridiculous already.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
[QUOTE]

This is pure propaganda. SCOTUS did not expand rights. They reduced unConstitutional restrictions on pre-existing rights.

This subtle propaganda to support a leftist agenda is effective with the masses. We must refute it.

This is the kind of shuffling of the truth I wish I could immediately recognize without giving it a second thought. It trips me up more than I care to admit. But I guess that’s the point. Thank you Fly-Sig for pointing it out.

I, too, get caught by this type of phrasing. My thanks also to Fly-Sig, and others, that help remember the truth of a thing, and how it is obfuscated.

With the lack of efficacy of the educational system coupled with the general disinterest of students to actually learn, how much of this is intentional positioning bias (leftists lies) vs ignorance of what the BoR really represents (inalienable rights)?

The bottom line is the same and neither is excusable. But I wonder how much of this type of phrasing in the media is intentional vs ignorance on the part of the writer.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
But I wonder how much of this type of phrasing in the media is intentional vs ignorance on the part of the writer.

Why pick just one? Can't we have both?

The writers pick up on the general tone and previous pronouncements on the subject, and this has warped their mind to the point where they are unable to express or even comprehend a point of view that doesn't match their indoctrination.

Much of the political dialogue we have seen develop in the past 80 years or so has been built around this kind of misrepresentation. For example, who could possibly be pro-abortion, or anti-life? But, instead, the language is chosen to minimize the positions of the "other side." This has happened across the political spectrum on practically every area of disagreement to the point where we are all talking around each subject in "code" if you will. And, yes, I for one believe it is completely intentional, and if ignorance helps one's cause then bring it on.

Reduce this language mangling to plain straightforward statements and I think you could find many who would adopt a position they previously opposed. But it is probably too late for that.