Supreme Court appears skeptical of Hawaii's law putting additional burdens on gun-toting vampires

essentialsaltes said:

The text of the law is right there.

Click to expand...

So is the date that's prior to the 14th Amendment and giving legal citizenship to emancipated slaves.

ThatRobGuy said:

Should the extra burdens be placed on the public-facing establishments that want to allow a (licensed) right to be exercised, or those who want to restrict it? -provided it's not something already prohibited by state or local laws
(the latter is the norm)

For instance, if a store or mall wanted to have policies such as "no backpacks allowed inside the store" or "no wheel shoes", the onus would typically be on them to convey that information to the public via signage, not on the public to try to seek out the store owner for clarification before going into the store.

Click to expand...

OTOH, there's already the extra burden of establishments placing no weapons allowed notices. Six of one / half dozen of the other. Example: In an open carry state, I saw a notice at the door of an establishment that stated open carry wasn't allowed in the store. It caught my attention because it said nothing about concealed carry. Had they not posted it, customers in that local could have opened carried on the premises, implying the assumption is that it's allowed unless prohibited by the owner or by state and federal law. Why not turn the assumption around and assuming it's not permitted unless there's a notice by the owner?

Tuur said:

OTOH, there's already the extra burden of establishments placing no weapons allowed notices. Six of one / half dozen of the other. Example: In an open carry state, I saw a notice at the door of an establishment that stated open carry wasn't allowed in the store. It caught my attention because it said nothing about concealed carry. Had they not posted it, customers in that local could have opened carried on the premises, implying the assumption is that it's allowed unless prohibited by the owner or by state and federal law. Why not turn the assumption around and assuming it's not permitted unless there's a notice by the owner?

Click to expand...

If a store owner wants to enforce a set of rules that are stricter than the state & local laws, then the onus is on them to take the effort to effectively communicate that to the public.

Otherwise, what's the limiting principle?

"There's no sign explicitly saying I can wear sunglasses into the store so I'll assume it's not allowed until I get clarification, I guess I'll have to get online and try to hunt down the store owner's phone number so I can give them a call and ask if that's okay" isn't a practical arrangement.

From a practical standpoint, customers can't be expected to anticipate every possible house rule a business might have. If a store bans photography when state law permits it, or requires masks when there's no government mandate, or prohibits certain types of clothing, customers operating within the bounds of the law have no way of knowing unless they're told.

From a legal perspective, many jurisdictions recognize this through concepts like "adequate notice." For rules to be enforceable (especially if violation could lead to trespass charges for refusing to comply), courts often expect businesses to have provided clear, visible notice. That's why you see posted signs about "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" or specific photography policies.

The counter-consideration is that businesses do have broad rights to refuse service and set conditions of entry on their private property. But the exercise of that right typically requires making those conditions known - through posted signage, stated policies at entry, employee communication, or website disclosure.


The "ambiguity favors the store owner who can kick people out and press charges for trespassing based on rules that were never communicated" isn't one that people would like if taken to it's likely conclusion.

The first time a store owner (with an affinity for the confederate flag) pressed trespassing charges on a black guy for a "no <insert garment here> rule" (that had never been communicated before), I'm betting those progressive lawmakers in HI may have some objections to the concept.

Tropical Wilds said:

This is the craziest timeline I tell you what.

Click to expand...

I read that in Hank Hill’s voice.

Larniavc said:

I read that in Hank Hill’s voice.

Click to expand...

That makes me strangely happy.

essentialsaltes said:

Irrelevant. The text of the law does not mention emancipated slaves or anything else that you keep wanting to talk about.

Click to expand...

And the Georgia law that required a literacy test to vote said not one word about disenfranchising blacks. Given the exemption granted to those who's ancestors served in the Union and Confederate military in the Civil War, that was the practical effect (though I'd have loved to have seen a black voter produce evidence their ancestor served in the USCT during the Civil War).

This is not hard. The Black Code cited as an argument for Hawaiian firearm restrictions were applied to those who at that time were not considered legal citizens of the United States. It took the 14th Amendment to clarify the issue of citizenship, and in the process ensured they were covered by the limits of powers under the US Constitution. Glossing over that aspect doesn't change it. As an argument of constitutionally of gun control goes, it's a mighty poor one.

Of course, if gun control advocates want to cling to the Black Codes for their argument, far be it from me to dissuade them.

I still haven't seen anyone mention the two instances that did apply to US citizens. Ah, well.