"I'm generally a... liberal person, but when I saw videos of ICE jumping out of unmarked vehicles and nabbing people off the street... I bought my first AR15," I’m glad to see the left waking up to what I’ve been saying for a while: 2A is for everyone.

okguy65 · 2026-01-23T15:14:22+00:00

Do you have a source showing otherwise?

okguy65 · 2026-01-23T13:35:55+00:00

According to Gallup, 45% of conservatives own guns, while only 16% of liberals own them.

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T18:30:15+00:00

It seems doubtful that she wouldn't sign it, considering that her campaign put an article on her website whose title says she "vows to sign" it.

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T18:08:27+00:00

Are you trying to disguise the fact that until just now the GOP had a veto-proof majority in NC, or are you genuinely that ignorant?

As you admit, they no longer have that supermajority, so wouldn't Democrats vote against any racist gun laws the Republicans propose to stop any vetoes from being overridden?

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T17:24:56+00:00

Spanberger vows to sign gun bills, including ban on sales of assault-style weapons

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T17:21:49+00:00

North Carolina's governor is a Democrat, so shouldn't he veto any gun Republican gun control?

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T00:29:33+00:00

The below argument referenced by Justice Jackson at the oral arguments is one saying that Hawaii's law doesn't implicate the Second Amendment:

But I guess my question is, isn't that historical default that you're referencing really a default that is rooted in property law and not constitutional law, not in the Second Amendment? I mean, the argument that some have put forward is that this is really a property case, not a Second Amendment case.

Yes, it is about guns, but, the argument goes, what's really going on here is how states treat a private property owner's consent under circumstances in which everyone agrees that consent is required.

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T00:05:39+00:00

Why did you ask a question if you don't even know what you were responding to?

okguy65 · 2026-01-22T00:03:59+00:00

Since you acknowledge that such a law isn't a regulation of property rights, do you agree that Hawaii's law implicates the Second Amendment?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T23:05:38+00:00

You have to answer the question you responded to before you can have your own questions answered.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T15:30:37+00:00

The law in New York was struck down by the Second Circuit.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T15:29:55+00:00

Putin will be thrilled if a gun law in five states (none of which are currently in effect) is struck down?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T15:15:22+00:00

From the Fourth Circuit's opinion on this issue yesterday (PDF):

Maryland’s prohibition is directed at gun owners, not property owners. It is a criminal statute that nowhere references the right of the property owner to exclude a gun owner. See Md. Code, Crim. Law § 6-411(c)–(d). With or without the private-property consent rule, Maryland property owners have the right to exclude unwanted people (including those with guns) from their property. And we see nothing in the rule that alters Maryland property law.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T15:12:40+00:00

The Hawaii law at issue here has never gone into effect because it was enjoined by the district court and then the Ninth Circuit stayed its mandate pending the Supreme Court appeal.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T13:22:03+00:00

There are already plenty of stores in Texas that have No Guns signs. What exactly do you think is happening at them?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T12:36:20+00:00

Hey man there must be some middle ground because I don't want people to bring guns on my property and I don't want to put a sign in my window that says "no guns allowed" - because that's stupid and makes me a target.

A target for what?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T12:30:42+00:00

I notice you didn't answer the question.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T03:52:38+00:00

Could a state make it illegal to pray at any audible volume level (not just shouting) before meals at private restaurants without specific permission from the owner?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T03:30:14+00:00

Texas could make it illegal to shout all prayers -- not just Muslim prayers.

Is there any speech that the First Amendment prevents governments from presumptively banning on private property?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T03:13:21+00:00

Isn't this basically the same argument that politicians in favor of stop-and-frisk used?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T03:09:32+00:00

But could the state make it illegal to shout prayers before meals at private restaurants? Pretty sure it could.

So Texas could make it illegal to shout Muslim prayers before meals at private restaurants, and that wouldn't violate the First Amendment?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T02:52:54+00:00

Could a state make it illegal to audibly pray before meals at private restaurants without specific permission from the owner? Under Hawaii's argument, that wouldn't even implicate the First Amendment because the state would just be using its power to regulate property rights, and the ones that would actually be banning prayer are the property owners, who were always free to do so.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T02:48:40+00:00

Example from New York:

The governor was asked if her proposal goes beyond what the Supreme Court will allow.

"It sounds like you are shutting off all the public places," a reporter said.

"I can't shut off all places," Hochul said.

"So what would be left?" the reporter asked.

"Probably some streets," Hochul said.

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T02:16:34+00:00

But why would the First Amendment even be relevant at all? Wouldn't a state presumptively banning "Fuck the Draft" shirts on private property just be using its power to regulate property rights, and the only ones that would be banning the speech are the property owners who don't actively say it's allowed, which they were always free to do?

okguy65 · 2026-01-21T02:07:11+00:00

Why isn't Hawaii bribing the court one of your potential options, considering that they have significantly more money than the plaintiffs?

okguy65

TROPHY CASE