News
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, blogs, 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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter, but do you even know what the process in HI is or are you from a different state?
But still, none of what you said makes it okay to assume someone doing something they're allowed to do in a place they're allowed to do it is thete to comitt a crime. Is that the power you want to give the goverment? Allowing them to percieve anyone as a threat for exercising rights they have? I don't think you could impliment a law like that without extreme potential for abuse and confusion around enforcememt. Not every law that targets 'bad' things is a good law.
If you think the permits are too easy to get that's an entirely seperate issue you cannot solve with either way this SC decision would go.
This is the power I want to give to restaurant and store owners. The rank hypocrisy I see on these topics is just stunning. "You can't force a store owner to make a cake for the gays but you can force them to allow dangerous weapons into their place of business."
Sure. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Let's make it fucking hard to get a permit and let businesses owners decide if they're allowed in.
Also, can I borrow several billion dollars to use in legal contests with extremely powerful lobbies? You must have it laying around with how simple you make it seem.
No one is forcing buisness owners to allow guns. The ruling specifically says if the owner withdraws consent, then you're not allowed. This can be via posted signs, publicly avaliable rules, or even verbally. The only thing he says he disagrees with is making people asusme they're not welcome until they are. Once a place of buisness demonstrates people carrying are not welcome, they're not welcome. Why do you keep misrepresenting this fact?
And for what its worth gay is a protected status under civil rights laws and carry permit holder is not. They should have had to make that cake, or at least be financially liable to the party they wronged.
Citizens lobbying exists, grass roots campaigns exist you don't need to spend billions. Beyond that weather you want to challenge this decision or work on the permit laws you will still need to do organizing work, that doesn't change based on what you choose to focus on. Up to you where you want to spend your efforts, Im just trying to help but if you don't trust me so be it.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
This isn't about private citizen rights vs the state. It's private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.
Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.
A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.
You're still not under burden to prove you have a right, they have to prove you don't. And its legally required public accommodations vs private citizen, this bill ONLY deals with private property that allows the public there, like storefronts. Under law these places need to provide what they call public accommodation.
I literally said this in this very thread. That's why this law doesn't prevent businesses from banning guns on the premise. Literally all it does is make it so they can't get in trouble if they walk onto property open to the public that no one has proactively declared a gunfree zone. If the property has posted that guns arent allowed, then they're still not allowed. If the business owner verbally says you cant carry here, they have to leave or secure the weapon elsewhere. All it does is say they can't face consequences until someone tells them it's not allowed, rather than assuming they're unwelcome everywhere until otherwise told.