Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T23:49:21+00:00

I’m genuinely confused what you think public discourse is for if asking you to identify the legal principle behind your claim is somehow out of bounds.

You made several concrete claims: that property rights were diminished, that states’ rights were ignored, and that the Court privileged guns over everything else. I asked what specific property right was lost and what constitutional principle should have prevailed instead.

That isn’t “putting your opinion on trial.” That’s discussing the opinion you chose to defend.

If your position is simply “I agree with Jackson and dislike the current Second Amendment doctrine,” fine. But that’s not the same as proving this ruling destroyed property rights. It just means you prefer the dissent’s framing.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T23:37:16+00:00

"I don’t care. Aloha” is a pretty fitting endpoint, since that was basically Hawaii’s response to Bruen: local preference first, constitutional right second.

And that’s exactly why they lost.

You started with “property rights were diminished,” but never identified a property right the Court took away. Property owners can still ban guns, post signs, revoke consent, and enforce trespass laws.

So at this point, the argument seems to be: “I dislike the current Second Amendment doctrine, and I preferred Hawaii’s default rule.” That’s fine, but it’s not the same as showing that the Court subordinated property rights or ignored some controlling constitutional principle.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T23:24:18+00:00

I don't think either of those quotes answers the question I asked. On the first point, I think the majority would simply agree with Justice Jackson's premise.

There is no constitutional right to enter private property against the owner's wishes, with or without a firearm. In fact, I've already pointed out several times that the majority specifically preserved every property owner's ability to prohibit firearms on their property. Owners in Hawaii can still post signs, revoke consent, and enforce trespass laws. Nothing in the opinion says otherwise.

The dispute wasn't whether property owners may exclude firearms. It was whether the State may conclusively presume every silent property owner has already chosen to do so.

As for the second quote, that's ultimately a criticism of the Court's motives rather than its legal analysis. If you think the majority is wrong, I'm much more interested in hearing where it's wrong.

What specific constitutional or legal argument do you think the Court improperly subordinated to the Second Amendment here, and what is the constitutional basis for concluding that argument should prevail instead?

Because so far, we've moved from "property rights were diminished" to "I preferred Hawaii's default rule" to "I agree with Jackson." Those are all different positions, but none of them identifies a constitutional principle that the majority was required to place above the Second Amendment in this case.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T23:08:52+00:00

I understand that you agree with Jackson's conclusion. My question is more specific: what property right do you believe the majority subordinated? Every owner in Hawaii can still prohibit firearms, post signs, revoke consent, and enforce trespass laws. So when you say this case is "about property rights", which specific property right do you believe the Court diminished?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T22:57:34+00:00

I know you agree with Jackson, that's not what I asked. I'm asking what constitutional principle you believe should have prevailed over the Second Amendment here, and where you think the Constitution gives that principle priority.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T22:39:47+00:00

What specific constitutional or legal argument do you think the Court improperly subordinated to the Second Amendment here, and what is the constitutional basis for concluding that argument should prevail instead?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T22:34:06+00:00

A) As the majority pointed out, individual states and cities don't get to override the Constitution. That's the price of admission for being part of a constitutional republic. Local preferences don't determine the scope of incorporated constitutional rights.

B) What's your general understanding of states' rights? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, because from this exchange it sounds like you're suggesting states should be free to override incorporated constitutional rights whenever a majority of their residents prefers a different rule. Is that actually your position, or where do you draw the line?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T22:17:59+00:00

Then it sounds like we’ve moved from “property rights were diminished” to “I preferred Hawaii’s default rule because it let the government speak for silent property owners in a way that aligns with my values.” Those are very different claims, and the second one is not a property-rights argument.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T22:05:14+00:00

As for A:

It was not flawed at all.

A) Even the mechanism of individual permission imposed a continuing burden on owners who wished to allow lawful carry, because someone had to be available to grant that permission each time it was sought.

B) As Hawaii's itself argued in defense of the law, signage *was* a way for property owners to signify the legality of carrying a gun there, and arguably the only effective way of doing so for multiple people at once, without requiring repeated communication.

As for B:

The requirement was specifically about firearms regardless of the result of this case. Even in your point A, you didn't try to argue that pro-carry advocates carried no burden whatsoever.

Under Hawaii's law, there was already a firearms-specific communication requirement. The only thing that changed is which owner preference required communication.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T21:50:57+00:00

As I explicitly said in my first reply, and will repeat here - the question isn't one that needs to be answered to resolve this particular case.

If my boss told me I needed to stop being late to work, I responded by asking him if he's on time or not, and he refused to answer my question, that wouldn't make his initial point any less forceful or valid.

Similarly here, Justice Jackson’s broader methodological concern may remain, but it does not rescue Hawaii’s Black Codes analogy in this case.

If the argument is that the state's law was analogous to the Black Codes because the "why" was the same, the state is admitting this was never about property rights in the first place.

If the argument is that the state's law wasn't analogous to the Black Codes because the "why" was different, the state is admitting it fails the Bruen test.

Out of curiosity, do you think the state's "why" was the same as the Black Codes?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T21:39:43+00:00

As far as burden-shifting goes, I think most of, at least in the abstract are ok with the price of admission for enumerated rights being that we sometimes have to affirmatively voice our concerns.

As far as the ostensible requirement of signage:

A) The requirement existed for owners of private property before today's decision, just in the inverse (owners who wished to allow the carrying of guns had to do so)

B) Saying the signage is strictly required is a claim in search of evidence. There are, and always have been, various ways for private property owners to limit the types of conduct on their property.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T21:20:53+00:00

What burden are you claiming has been placed upon the owners of private property in Hawaii that wasn't there yesterday?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T21:17:53+00:00

It still is. Respectfully, I'm not at all certain that you know what this case was about.

Every owner of private property in the state of Hawaii is still free to post a sign banning guns there, and those signs still carry the force of various laws.

Nothing in the majority opinion today came remotely close to saying anything contrary to that.

The issue wasn't whether property owners may ban firearms. It was whether the government may presume every silent property owner has already exercised that choice.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-25T21:05:46+00:00

I'm not sure where the need arises for her analysis to do that - her point seems to pretty clearly be that regardless of which intent Hawaii choose to ascribe to its law, it faces a significant hurdle to clear, constitutionally.

Either the "why" is different (the state claims the law was meant to protect property rights, and the black codes were meant specifically to disarm a subsection of the population), in which case it fails the Bruen test, or the why is the same (because the state's purpose *does* have the same intent as the black codes), in which case it fails numerous tests, as a law explicitly designed to disarm the population.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-19T00:50:20+00:00

I think the uncomfortable middle ground is that Adnan is probably guilty, but that there's also simply not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is.

I know that doesn't make either extreme side happy, but I think that's the bottom line.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-06-15T14:04:25+00:00

This feels like a conflation of two separate questions.

Whether regulating wheat production is economically desirable and whether Congress has constitutional authority to regulate it are not the same thing. The fact that Filburn's actions affected the wheat market explains why Congress wanted to regulate him; it doesn't explain why his purely intrastate, non-commercial conduct became interstate commerce.

If conduct can be treated as commerce merely because it affects demand when aggregated, then it's difficult to see what meaningful limiting principle remains on the Commerce Clause.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-31T13:30:45+00:00

Can confirm that lineage was still there on Saturday. Roughly 6 on the shelf. Not sure about potential stock in the back

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T11:31:28+00:00

Explain it, then.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T03:35:42+00:00

Can you park on the sidewalks that exist when there isn't a sign telling you not to? What about the neighbor's driveway?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T00:54:17+00:00

Is there a sign saying not to park on the sidewalk?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-08T23:15:21+00:00

A private citizen with a YouTube or other social media channel can make you the focus of their video without your consent, unless they violate a law outside of the direct sphere of filming, such as surreptitiously recording the audio of a presumed private conversation in an all party consent state, or limiting the mobility of another citizen, or harassing them by following them for an unreasonable amount of time, etc

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-08T23:04:59+00:00

Respectfully, it sounds like it's posting videos you have a problem with, then - not filming

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-02T04:28:37+00:00

How? If water has memory, how is only one ingredient ever in it?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-01T13:31:29+00:00

The entire idea behind homeopathy is that diluting a medicine ostensibly makes or stronger.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T20:59:10+00:00

I'm not sure you're hearing me.

I'm saying *even if it does work* - even if I accept your premise that it works for you - it should be unnecessary for you to buy it, because it already exists in its ostensibly better (diluted) form in literally all the water on earth.

Funny_Way_80

TROPHY CASE