Gun Rights Controversy

After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach. Five Democrat-led states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto another person’s property without that person’s express consent.

Property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. However, Hawaii’s law creates the default of handguns not being allowed unless there’s express permission, rather than being allowed unless there's express prohibition. Since the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, one should never have to seek permission to carry anywhere in public. Nor should they be denied on private property by default. On the other hand, I do believe it to be common courtesy to ask first, especially if children are present.

New York had passed a law that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun. Thankfully, legal challenges to such a silly law were successful in striking down that requirement. After all, what’s so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed”?

Other states have tried to make gun ownership by 18-20 year old persons illegal. Exercising common sense, US Circuit Judge, Edith Jones, wrote, "The history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment."

Exactly! Eighteen-to-twenty year old persons serve in the US military every day. They help defend our country. We hand them highly deadly military firearms to do so if needed. Then they come home to states that want to tell them they can’t own a much simpler firearm for personal use. How crazy and illogical can states’ get?

The words “shall not be infringed” must be obeyed by all state and local governments, as federal law trumps them. However, “shall not be infringed” assumes you are not using that right to deny the rights of others. You can’t use that right to kill other people except in self-defense of yourself or another person. You shouldn’t be allowed to use that right, and the threat of death, to commit an armed holdup, an assault, or robbery. It’s no different than the First Amendment right to free speech not being allowed to commit slander or libel against another person.

Guns are not the problem. Certain people holding guns are the problem. In an alleged free country, where every person should retain the right of innocent until proven guilty, “shall not be infringed” needs to be strictly adhered to -- at least until said person is proven unworthy of said right. Even then, that denial needs to be on a case-by-case basis, rather than society as a whole.