Hawaii rules against public carrying of guns without permit citing ‘aloha spirit’
State’s high court upholds the Hawaiian Spirit Law and quotes The Wire in apparent rebuke to US supreme court: ‘They the old days’
You're viewing a single thread.
Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.
They could like, get a permit
True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol
Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).
The argument may be that driving isn't in the constitution. You don't need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I'm fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.
You are correct on the argument.
We put law on paper because other paper has law on it
My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.
you are executing the function of a xerox copier. functioning society
If we just throw the rules out, then there will STILL be guns.
You don't like the Constitution? Hold a Constitutional Convention. We've done it before.
Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren't in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.
should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
If you're talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an "Army" or a "Navy".
Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.
They don't define the constitutional meaning of "Militia" when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from "citizen" to "person subject to US law" or "able bodied" to "sound minded", or "male" to "person", or "17-45" to "16-60".
The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of "We The People", and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in "armies" or the "Navy".
The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don't think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.
You don't get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.
You are.
Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of "a free State".
If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.
Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of “a free State”.
Very well. Please show me the court ruling to that effect.
If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.
So I am not in a well-regulated militia now? Why can't you keep your story straight? If I am in a well-regulated militia now I am entitled to be paid for it, if vague promises of freedom are my payments then why do I get paid for jury duty, if I am not in a militia then why can I buy a gun?
My story is straight. The flaw is your lack of understanding the difference between "militia" and "armed forces".
The "armed forces" are the "armies" and the "Navy" provided for under Article I Section 8 clauses 12, 13, and 14. They are the professional forces hired by the government to serve its needs.
The militia is not an "army" or the "Navy". The militia is not an "armed service". It is not regulated under clauses 12, 13, or 14.
The "militia" is We The People. Under Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, Congress has the authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (training) the militia, as well as calling us forth for purposes of enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. Additionally, under the 2nd Amendment, we are directly charged with providing the security of a free State.
When we are "called forth" from the militia, we enter what the Constitution refers to as the "armies" or the "Navy", and we receive a paycheck for our military service. We are now regulated under laws enacted in accordance with clauses 12, 13, and/or 14.
When we are not called forth from the militia, we still have the obligation to provide the security of a free State, as described in the 2nd Amendment.
Where you do not receive the benefits of a free State (you are incarcerated for draft dodging, for example) you are not obligated to provide the state's security.
You're free to try to sue the government for additional compensation relating to your militia service, but whatever you end up receiving from the public, you will also end up being required to pay to the public.
You are already a member of a militia in the US - it's called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.
This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.
I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being "called up" by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I'm old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.
So perhaps you should get that musket and start training...........
it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That's very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?
No.
The age and gender requirements come from the legislature, not the Constitution. Constitutionally, the militia is everyone. If militia membership is required for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment, we have to use the Constitutional meaning of "militia" which is everyone.
Legislatively, the militia is defined in 10 USC § 246, the unorganized class of which is comprised of all able-bodied male citizens and those who intend to become citizens, aged 17 to 45.
Congress can change the legislative definition. They cannot alter the constitutional meaning.
I dislike this "only guns from 1700's" argument. The constitution didn't make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn't possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict "new" guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I'll have to research more.
private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing:
Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.
We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one
We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.
Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people
gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn't be in the constitution.
Article I Section 10 Clause 3:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Article I specifically prohibits states from keeping standing armies and entering into wars.
Militia != Military. A militiaman is not a "troop". Militia are not under the command of a state. Militia are under no command. Individuals may be called forth from the militia into a state or federal army.
If there is a constitutional remedy for force to be brought to bear against a tyrannical federal government, it is only through "We The People" - the militia - taking back by force what we previously granted it in peace.
A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.
You don't need a driver's license or registration to own a car. You don't need a driver's license or registration to operate a car on private property. You don't need a driver's license or registration to transport your car in public spaces.
Hell, if you get a small dirt bike, you can slap shoulder straps on it and carry it down the sidewalk with no license or registration. You would only violate the registration requirements if you set it down in a public space. Granted, that's not a typical scenario, but it is a valid one.
If there were a life threatening emergency and you needed immediate transportation to the hospital, you would be justified in using any vehicle at your disposal, including an unregistered one, to make that trip.
Can I own and operate a gun on my own property without a license or registration?
Can I operate my gun on my friend's property without license and registration?
Can I transport (not use) my gun through public spaces without a license or registration?
If I run into a life threatening emergency that can only be remedied by using my gun in a public space without a license or registration, am I justified in doing so?
If we are to regulate guns the same way as cars, you would be able to carry your gun while walking down the street, and only violate licensing and registration requirements when you draw it in a public place.
Suffice it to say that cars are regulated much more leniently than guns.
In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license. Some states have a grace period, but it is required. Even if you only intend to drive it on your own private property. Is it enforceable? Probably not, but it is the law.
Not only that, legally you still need to register your car with the state. I’ll concede the “you can buy cars immediately but not guns” argument, but that really only applies to some states. In Wisconsin, you don’t need to register nor is there any waiting period.
As for the “justified” argument, of course you are justified in those cases—but you can still be charged. Hell, my grandmother had to go to court for driving me (without a license) to the hospital in the 90s.
In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license.
No you don't. That's a requirement for vehicles that will be operated on the road.
There is no requirement anywhere in the nation for liability insurance on a vehicle that will be operated solely on private property.
There is no requirement for liability insurance on a tractor, a ride on lawnmower, a dune buggy, a dirt bike, a demolition derby car, or similar unregistered "vehicles".
That is simply false.
As for your grandmother: a "charge" is merely a question for the courts to answer. "Did this woman break the law for driving her daughter to the hospital?"
If ever forced to use a firearm against another person, any reasonable person would expect a similar question to be asked, and the courts to supply the answer. "Charges" are nothing a reasonable, responsible person need fear.
The cost of complying with the dozens of legal hoops is often like 10-20x or more than the price of just a cheap pistol itself.
Larger financial barriers just mean if you're rich you can do what you want and if you're not, you're fucked, which often leads to people breaking these dumb laws and the cycle getting worse.
Larger financial barriers just mean if you're rich you can do what you want and if you're not, you're fucked,
This is a very dumb mentality. Like making sure your car is safe and roadworthy costs money. But we don't view people who drive with broken break lights or worn out tyres so sympathetically.
A janky car is a danger to others on the road, not having the proper paperwork for your gun only puts yourself in legal danger.
So you think people who haven't practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???
Well an apples to apples comparison would be a rusty or dirty gun, which is way more likely to simply not work than it is to malfunction in a dangerous way. A rusty old car has multiple failure points that are dangerous to people who aren't the driver.
As for user competence, I would love to see firearms training become a standard class option in high school, just like driving is now. I'd rather we had a society where neither were necessary, but we're not anywhere close to that ideal on either front.
I think adding undue cost holds weight even though we live in a society currently where people are expecting compensation for their materials and time. One is making it more expensive specifically because "the poors shouldn't have guns," one is how much a physical item is sold for. In a post scarcity society where everything is always free; sure I agree, that argument would be silly. But this ain't that, we ain't never had that, and I'm 99% sure we never will have that.
Just like you wouldn't be driving without a license, but what if criminals have cars?
No, you can't. Hawaii is not a shall-issue state. It's pretty much impossible to get a permit there. Also, criminals won't be getting permits so why should we make law abiding citizens get them.
Make the bad thing illegal. Don't make the tools or the intermediate steps illegal
Fr, I've been looking into a tool (that is about to be banned in Canada) that lets you "hack" radio signals. It's legal to buy and use on your own devices, I plan to use it on my car as after some research into my aftermarket lock I think I can. However if I use it to unlock someone else's car and steal their stuff, that is illegal.
Guns follows the same logic, yes, they can be used for crime; just like the f0 or the wifi pineapple, or the bashbunny, or rubberducky/badusb, but they can also be used for defense, like all those pentesting tools can legally be used for pentesting. It's all in the person behind the item.
This is the same crowd that will try to claim code is not a crime. Now, I agree with that statement, but at least I'm logically consistent and believe possession of a firearm should be perfectly legal.
And then the state has a convenient list of who to go after once the shit hits the fan at the end of the year.
They already have multiple lists. But also they tend to add names ad hoc when that kind of thing starts happening.
Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?
It's absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.
The US has not had uncontrolled gun distribution and nobody is asking for that. You can't legally buy a gun without a background check and more, and it has been this way for decades.
and nobody is asking for that.
Lol I wish
Yeah, those two things together are the problem
relaxed condescending chuckles from Canada
That's a concern people had when things transitioned outside the US.
I can't imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.
It's not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.
My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you're just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.
Just go play roblox or something instead. It's a better use of your time kid.
Labeling everything you don't agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.
Well it's a good thing there's plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn't it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn't mean I say the same about anything and everything.
Its the typical right wing argument of "not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis" when no one is doing that.
The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.