So then why are they banned in federal buildings? If they are not dangerous allow them everywhere, hypocrites
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
162 points (98.8% liked)
News
38898 readers
3798 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Let me guess, guns still banned from supreme court public events?
If it's private property can't the property owners just put up signs?
Yep thats literally all they need to do. This bill just means if theres no signs you can walk in a public place without first tracking down who the owner is and getting expressed consent from them.
Edit after re-reading the opinion a few times: Im pretty sure it doesn't necessarily have to be a posted sign either. Roberts mentions carriers being welcome UNTIL consent is withdrawn. A buisness owner should be able to withdraw consent multiple ways; signs, publicly avaliable rules that may or may not be visually posted, or even verbally telling someone carrying is not allowed. If im interpreting correctly, I believe the majority is trying to say that you just can't get in trouble for going in without first asking consent, but as soon as consent is known to you to be withdrawn, you're still liable to follow those rules. Similar to if you were tresspassing somewhere that had no signs posted; no immediate trouble as long as you respect the owner should they inform you and ask you to leave.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I guess in addition to "No soliciting" my front door sign will also have to say "No firearms".
Not an expert in all the laws in Hawaii but this seems to target places that do buisness or are otherwise open to the general public. It would be much less of an undue burder to locate the owner of a private domicile before entering. If Hawaii rewrote this law about private houses, Id be pissed too if they overturned it.
In the absense of that law existing though posting 'no guns' will likely be necessary as people can't follow rules they dont know exists.
In Texas there is a law that only LEOs can carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from alcohol sales, and other businesses can post that firearms are not permitted. I’m curious how this ruling squares with those laws.
Easily if you read the article. No one is banning gun free zones.
Because this law is about places that do not have signs. It's the question of, "I have a gun and want to go into a store, but there is no sign saying "no guns" and I can't find the owner. Who do I talk to so I can get agreement to come into the store?" This is not banning "no guns allowed" signs. It's about having to ask permission of a person who may not even live in the state to enter a place that the public is allowed to enter.
but the Texas law means you have to locate the owner AND ask for detailed sales records to determine if a business makes more than 50% of its revenue on alcohol.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"states rights"
This is to give coverage to ICE terrorists and January 6th Confederates. Bluehaired femfolk should respond in kind.
As a pro second-amendment libertarian... this is nuts. Impeach and limit.
Gun free zones are still fine as long as there are signs or rules from the property owner.
Im curious what to you is nuts about not haveing to find and contact the owner of a public storefront before entering that public place when there are no posted signs or rules about guns?
It flips the burden of responsibility. You have a second amendment right to carry a gun but with that right comes the responsibility of ensuring you do not violate others rights with it. If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure others know they aren't a threat.
If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent.
Considering this law is about licensed permit holders and public spaces I would say that's extremely unreasonable to assume. Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they're allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one
Listen, I own guns. I like basically anything that fires any kind of projectile. I've got bows and slingshots and BB guns and air rifles. I think all these things are totally reasonable to own.
However, anyone with half a functioning brain should be able to easily understand why guns are incredibly threatening.
When you want to play cowboy and carry around a gun you need to understand that you live in a world where public shootings happen all the fucking time. Assuming someone is carrying because they intend to do harm is entirely reasonsble and the only safe assumption one can make.
Someone owning a bit of paper with "the NRA spent billions to make sure I get to carry around my penis replacement" on it does not in any way indicate that they are safe to be around.
If you want the extraordinary privilege of carrying around something that can kill indiscriminately, you should be willing to take the extraordinary responsibility of going out of your way to keep everyone around you feeling safe. If you aren't willing to do this you've kind of already indicated you're a potential threat.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they're allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
That's just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn't have it. It's on the gun owner to prove they aren't a threat.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
Call ahead. Or just don't carry the gun if you don't know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.
The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one
The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It's more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you.
That's just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn't have it. It's on the gun owner to prove they aren't a threat.
This is not how law works, you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it. This is not going to change based on which right it is, thats literally totalitarian. Arguing for 'guilty until proven innocent' is not going to get you far.
Call ahead. Or just don't carry the gun if you don't know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.
The McDonalds owner? You think hes in the back making fries? And for the third time THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It's about specifically privately owned property THAT IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. These places, unlike strictly private property, legally MUST follow whats called public accomodation. Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.
The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It's more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you
The existence of a parking lot is not a sign. Parking on someones lawn is not the same considering someones private lawn has no obligation to follow public accommodations, but private buisness open to the public DO have to follow public accommodations.
You're misunderstanding how the law works and it's eating all your effort on a bill that likely wouldn't have survived even a balanced supreme court. When I told you to consider legislating from the permit side it wasn't to dismiss you, it was because that's a much more fiesable avenue to survive court challenges, as well as more enforceable laws, and I believe more impactful ones too. You'll feel better being able to actually make headway. I may not agree with you %100 but im not lying about that being a more open avenue for changes and I know what it's like feeling like you can't do anything about a problem important to you, just trying to point you in the right direction. Id hoenstly bet there's at lesst a handful of gun control we'd even agree on tbh, I promise I'm not here just to disagree with everything.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is not about walking into a place armed without consent. This is about the fact that it can be impossible to get consent. It might be perfectly fine with the owner of the property, but a legal carrier of a gun in a public place that allows legal carrying of guns has no way to gain that consent.
This still allows store owners to put up a No Guns sign. This ruling is saying that for stores that do NOT have a No Guns sign then the assumption is that people who are legally allowed to carry guns in public are allowed to exercise that legal approval. Hawaii's law was that a person had to go find the owner of the property before going where other members of the public are allowed to go without asking permission.
As far as assuming someone has malicious intent simply for carrying a gun in public, I think that is a bad assumption in the US. I know you have the caveat of "without consent," but this ruling is about the inability to give or receive consent. So any assumption is out the door.
This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.
Correct. I think that in absence of consent it is absurd to default to remaining armed.
I can't walk into an empty house whenever I want because there is no one to ask for consent. I can't ride off with a bike left on the street because there is no owner around. I can't leave a restaurant after eating because I can't immediately find someone to give me a check. The default cannot be that your rights supersede others unless they are actively defending them. This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that Hawaii had flipped the common-law rule under which anyone, including those lawfully armed, may enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. By requiring affirmative consent for firearms specifically, the Court reasoned, the state imposed a “new and significant burden” on permit holders, who would otherwise risk criminal liability merely by entering gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores and other everyday businesses without a posted welcome.
So, either we're allowed to bring guns anywhere including federal buildings, or guns are only allowed to be blanket banned from buildings.
He said 'Unless the owner withdraws consent' that does not mean everywhere or nowhere. You dont have to look hard for honest critisicm of Roberts but pretending like hes saying there are no more gun free zones isn't helping, its misinformation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't think it realy actually has much to do with guns. It's about privacy. Something the Supreme Court has been trying to murder for the last 50 years.
Don't get me wrong, I do see the gun owners arguments here. What's wrong with putting up a sign? That's a legitimate point. But the law itself and the Supreme Court challenge brings it into a different Realm. If the owner of a private domicile or business wants it to be different, they want to have individual decision making on a case-by-case basis, why shouldn't they? It's their private home or business and they can do what they want shouldn't they?
view more: next ›