Posted: 6/25/2026 3:00:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99][Edited]
|
So if this ruling says that States can't decide if carry is allowed or not for a private business...the fact that they may serve alcohol is moot. A restaurant must post a no guns sign if they want to ban guns. States can't decide for them, right? Sooo...in my opinion, states can't decide for ANY private business that is open to the public. Doctor's offices, private zoos or parks, private sports venues etc. And this opinion also strongly reinforces text history and tradition...and it also specifically tosses a bunch of bullshit "analogous" laws that NY and other states have been using to justify sensitive locations (both private AND public). Sooo....I'd say the CCIA carry bans (both private and public) are toast, based on this decision. Now we just have to get rid of the training requirements and the licensing schemes...then AWB/semi auto rifle/mag bans...and ammo purchase restrictions. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So if this ruling says that States can't decide if carry is allowed or not for a private business... You need to read the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Christian v. James from May of this year before the Hawaii case was decided. |
|
Originally Posted By Zero6: You need to read the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Christian v. James from May of this year before the Hawaii case was decided. Originally Posted By Zero6: Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: So if this ruling says that States can't decide if carry is allowed or not for a private business... You need to read the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Christian v. James from May of this year before the Hawaii case was decided. I know that decision also overturned the vampire rule...but whatever that decision said is basically moot now. Alito strongly said that states can't decide for private businesses or properties open to the public. |
|
Another point being brought up...this decision kills the "common use" test too. An additional thought: Wolford should be the end of courts applying "common use" or other similar standards to determine whether a law banning a type of weapon implicates the Second Amendment's plain text. The Court says that the plain-text meaning of arms is implicated when the answer to the following is yes: "Does [a law] concern any form of 'Arms,' i.e., any weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes?" Is it an arm? Yes? Protected. No law is constitutional unless there is a widespread historical tradition of it. And there are basically no gun laws, especially before the 1900s, that fit the bill. Bigger decision than we really thought! Honestly this kills AWBs, mag laws, ammo purchase restrictions, licensing laws, training requirements. Everything. Fuck you NY democrats. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99: Another point being brought up...this decision kills the "common use" test too. Is it an arm? Yes? Protected. No law is constitutional unless there is a widespread historical tradition of it. And there are basically no gun laws, especially before the 1900s, that fit the bill. Bigger decision than we really thought! Honestly this kills AWBs, mag laws, ammo purchase restrictions, licensing laws, training requirements. Everything. Fuck you NY democrats. |
|
The Wolford decision also clarified that a bit too though... And “Arms,” we explained, refers to implements used for offense or defense. Implements is a good clarification. They didn't say "weapons" Anything that can be of use on a weapon is an arm. Optics, handguards, pistol grips...everything. Accoutrements are arms. |
|
Originally Posted By tc556guy: I bet the state tries to just ignore this or any other ruling they don't like from the current court 
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Dealing with Congress is like trying to have an adult conversation about the credit card with your alcoholic bi-polar Ukranian import wife."
"Dealing with Congress is like trying to have an adult conversation about the credit card with your alcoholic bi-polar Ukranian import wife."