WSJ.com — OpinionHawaii Can't Ban Guns by Default
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/wolford-v-lopez-hawaii-second-amendment-guns-supreme-court-69c9f390
PugJesus
Nonilex#SCOTUS struckdown a #Hawaii #law requiring people to get permission to carry #guns into stores & hotels, in its latest opinion backing #2A rights.
The court’s 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls & gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments.
It’s a win for the #Trump admin, which argued the law violates the #SecondAmendment. It’s also a win for #MassShooting planners.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-hawaii-trump-c5dbdf945bc870f70a03455f5eb1dec7
Supreme Court strikes down strict Hawaii gun law
The Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into places such as stores and hotels. The Thursday decision is the high court's latest ruling backing Second Amendment rights. President Donald Trump's Republican administration opposed the law, arguing that Hawaii had violated gun rights by effectively banning them from a wide range of places generally open to the public. Hawaii, on the other hand, said the 2023 measure was aimed at protecting the rights of property owners. The decision doesn't stop businesses from taking their own steps to ban guns on their property.
Sons Of LibertySpecial Friday night #2A livestream in a few minutes. We'll be going live with SoL admins Matt and BigSarge, SoL member and Navy vet Santana, and Doc from Outside The Wire. We'll be talking about #SecondAmendment stuff tonight. Come ask questions! WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biwNsMs67Iw
RedwoodSecThe Judicial Demise of Categorical Disarmament: United States v. Hemani and the Constitutional Viability of Section 922(g)(1):
The conceptual core of the Hemani decision—that the government cannot categorically label a broad group of people as "dangerous" to strip them of their Second Amendment rights without an individualized judicial finding of dangerousness—has immediate, devastating implications for the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Section 922(g)(1) is the most frequently prosecuted federal firearms offense in the United States, operating as a strict, lifetime, blanket ban on firearm possession for any individual convicted of any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of whether the predicate offense involved a single act of violence.
Under Hemani, the government's standard defense of § 922(g)(1) faces a profound constitutional challenge. Historically, federal prosecutors defended the permanent disarmament of all felons by arguing that the legislature has the categorical authority to deem anyone who commits a felony as "unfit" or "dangerous". However, the Hemani majority explicitly adopted the core principle articulated by then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett in her dissenting opinion in Kanter v. Barr (2019): that the founding-era tradition of disarmament focuses strictly on "dangerousness, not status". #uspol #hemani #scotus #maga #2a #secondamendment #firearm
The conceptual core of the Hemani decision—that the government cannot categorically label a broad group of people as "dangerous" to strip them of their Second Amendment rights without an individualized judicial finding of dangerousness—has immediate, devastating implications for the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Section 922(g)(1) is the most frequently prosecuted federal firearms offense in the United States, operating as a strict, lifetime, blanket ban on firearm possession for any individual convicted of any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of whether the predicate offense involved a single act of violence.
Under Hemani, the government's standard defense of § 922(g)(1) faces a profound constitutional challenge. Historically, federal prosecutors defended the permanent disarmament of all felons by arguing that the legislature has the categorical authority to deem anyone who commits a felony as "unfit" or "dangerous". However, the Hemani majority explicitly adopted the core principle articulated by then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett in her dissenting opinion in Kanter v. Barr (2019): that the founding-era tradition of disarmament focuses strictly on "dangerousness, not status". #uspol #hemani #scotus #maga #2a #secondamendment #firearm
Arguably United States v. Hemani and Bruen have indefinitely changed the landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence #uspol #firearm #secondamendment #2A
Round ReconFlorida AG: 'This law is unconstitutional. We're not even going to try to defend it.'
That's not a court loss. That's a concession so complete that the AG basically said 'I don't even want to waste the court's time on this.' Wild. #SecondAmendment #Courts
RonSupportsYouThis is what two #SocialMedia accounts published:
House Republicans wrote: "The #SecondAmendment is your right. It is not up for negotiation. Republicans will always defend it."
House Democrats wrote: "Unless your name was Alex Pretti."
#ICE #lawlessness #politics #Minneapolis
PA's 'universal' storage mandate:
[Applies to exactly nobody's real situation]
[Creates criminal liability for everyone else]
[Legislators shocked when diversity exists]
Who's missing from this design? #SecondAmendment #LAFail
Pennsylvania HB2244: mandatory firearm storage with zero flexibility. No exceptions for individual circumstances—single people, disabled folks, or families with adult children. Criminal liability for not fitting the government's one-size box.
Legislators who champion harm reduction should ask: does uniform storage law reduce harm, or just create new ways to criminalize ordinary people? #SecondAmendment #GunPolicy #HarmReduction