Article Link! Supreme Court strikes down gun limits for stores, other public places

Funny how the lib justices ignore the parts of the constitution they don’t agree with and render a decision that is contrary to the constitution. I mean, their only job is to rule on constitutional issues. It’s like what does the constitution say? Well, there you go. Shall not infringe! Next case.
 
Bobster said:
USATODAY=:poop:
Click to expand...

Sigh. How does that matter in the case of this report? Do you disagree with what is being reported? You disagree with the SCOTUS decision? You REALLY care about where or how you hear about the FACTUAL SCOTUS decision? Is the story reported incorrect? If so, please point it out. Sure... there is the slant about the possible "issues" with the decision. I don't give a fuck about that. I'm just sharing the report that SCOTUS ruled on the side on the 2A. I skim right on past any implied bitching and moaning by the media (which is ubiquitous).

To me, that's just as bad as TDS. They reject anything simply because it's associated with Trump, even though it's irrefutably true.

My news feed isn't limited to Fox News (which has its own biases). In fact, I usually have to DIG to find Fox News links. They often get buried by all the liberal media links. So, I click on the first link when it's good news for the 2A. Oftentimes, it's the ONLY link, if there are any at all.
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
Sigh.
Click to expand...
Just keeping you on your toes, brother... :D
Why feed from the rear end of the bull when you can feed from the trough. SCOTUS Hawaii Decision

decision.JPG
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Bobster said:
Just keeping you on your toes, brother... :D
Why feed from the rear end of the bull when you can feed from the trough. SCOTUS Hawaii Decision
Click to expand...

Because it's convenient for me to spot it in my news feed, click it, skim it. And the copy-paste it here for anyone interested.

I'm not hear to defend the source, but I feel pretty confident they reported the SCOTUS decision correctly.
 
James Moore said:
I didn't think that Hawaiian law would make it past SCOTUS.

I agree that any business owner has the right to ban firearms on their property, but the government doesn't have the right to ban them in the owner's stead.
Click to expand...

I agree that property owners should be able to set POLICIES banning weapons. But I do not agree with those policies having the weight of law, as they do in some states. Here in my state, those policies do NOT carry the weight of law. At most, they can trespass you, IF they discover you are carrying (and doing a very BAD JOB of concealing) AND you refuse to leave when asked (very very dumb thing to do). But the policy itself does not automatically carry the weight of law here. In some states it does. And that's bogus, man.

contact professors GIF
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
I agree that property owners should be able to set POLICIES banning weapons. But I do not agree with those policies having the weight of law, as they do in some states. Here in my state, those policies do NOT carry the weight of law. At most, they can trespass you, IF they discover you are carrying (and doing a very BAD JOB of concealing) AND you refuse to leave when asked (very very dumb thing to do). But the policy itself does not automatically carry the weight of law here. In some states it does. And that's bogus, man.

contact professors GIF
Click to expand...
I see a lot of "unlicensed firearms prohibited" signs here in Texas. Not the 30.06 or 30.07 signs required by Texas law. I just ignore them as we don't have firearms licenses here. Even if we did they would have to be printed with 3" letters and such and would take up the entire door so what they are posting won't stand up in court. Places that legally post the 30.06/30.07 signs tend to not get my business. I have paid more for items just to avoid posted stores.
 
Curmudgeon said:
I see a lot of "unlicensed firearms prohibited" signs here in Texas. Not the 30.06 or 30.07 signs required by Texas law. I just ignore them as we don't have firearms licenses here. Even if we did they would have to be printed with 3" letters and such and would take up the entire door so what they are posting won't stand up in court. Places that legally post the 30.06/30.07 signs tend to not get my business. I have paid more for items just to avoid posted stores.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm familiar with the 30.06 signs and specific requirements. But when I have visited TX, it's a pain in the ass worrying about the stupid signs. If I'm there with friends (who don't need to know if I'm carrying), it can get awkward if we walk up to a restaurant or other business, and suddenly I have to "go back to the car for something." Texas is not really very CCW-friendly. It's not as "pro-2A" as people assume for Texas. Because the signs DO carry the weight of law. And unless you know in advance where the stupid signs are, you can get caught in an iffy situation.
 
Last edited:
NavyVette said:
Yeah, I like it like this "No Weapons Allowed" signs are not enforced in Montana.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "not enforced?" Taken literally, it would mean it IS the law... but not enforced. So, do the signs carry the weight of law, but LE is simply ignoring it? aka "not enforced?" Or do you mean they simply don't carry the weight of law?

In my state signs simply don't carry the weight of law. So there's nothing to enforce or "not enforce." There's nothing legal about the signs. It's just the property owner's own policy. Policies in private entities are not laws.
 
NavyVette said:
I did notice that in FL you cannot carry in areas where alcohol is served though.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

You cannot sit at a bar or enter an establishment that is solely a bar. But you can absolutely carry in a restaurant that also serves alcohol, for example. The law applies to establishments that are dedicated to serving alcohol. A bar.

In a restaurant with a bar, you can go anywhere except sit at the bar.
 
Back
Top