Hawaii's Supreme Court Insists There Is No Individual Right to Arms
Rejecting a challenge to the state's strict gun laws, the court is openly contemptuous of Second Amendment precedents.
Rejecting a challenge to the state's strict gun laws, the court is openly contemptuous of Second Amendment precedents.
The decision likens the federal law to Reconstruction era restrictions on firearms near polling places.
California made carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
The state's law, which a federal judge enjoined last month, prohibits firearms in most public places.
After a federal judge deemed the state's location-specific gun bans unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit stayed his injunction.
The court upheld several other location-specific gun bans, along with the state's "good moral character" requirement for a carry permit.
By banning firearms from a long list of "sensitive places," the state is copying a policy that federal judges have repeatedly rejected.
The decision is another rebuke to states that have imposed broad, location-specific limits on the right to bear arms.
The governor's attempt to rule by decree provoked widespread condemnation instead of the applause she was expecting.
Local police officials are leery of enforcing Michelle Lujan Grisham's ban on public carry, which gun rights groups have challenged in federal court.
The state defied a Supreme Court ruling by banning guns from myriad "sensitive places."
A New York Times story about the state's location-specific gun bans glosses over the vast territory they cover.
The city has not granted a single permit since the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last June.
By banning firearms from a wide range of "sensitive places," the state effectively nullified the right to bear arms.
The state's ban applies unless the property owner posts a sign allowing firearms or otherwise gives "express consent."
Bowies were regulated like other knives; knives were sometimes regulated like handguns
Gun Owners of America prevail in Antonyuk v. Hochul
The state made it a felony to carry handguns for self-defense in "any place of worship or religious observation."
Carry permit applicants would have to prove they are not dangerous, and guns would be banned from myriad locations.
Legislators in both states favor subjective standards and sweeping restrictions for carry permits.
The decision is a warning to states that impose vague permit standards or sweeping bans on guns in "sensitive locations."
Article for Cato Supreme Court Review
Some states promptly eliminated subjective standards, while others refused to recognize the decision's implications.
The argument for loosening restrictions on armed self-defense goes beyond the measurable impact on public safety.
The Supreme Court should reject a law that bars ordinary people from carrying guns for self-defense.