Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,350 posts)
15. While the details it is not as broad as some posters are assuming
Fri Jun 26, 2026, 12:55 PM
Friday

The default rule in Hawaii was that bringing a gun onto private property that is open to the public was prohibited without the owner’s express consent. While I don’t agree with the Court’s decision it is not as broad as some of the posts assume. First, it doesn’t apply to private property that is not generally open to the public — such as a private residence. Second, it reverses the default rule back to the one prevalent in most jurisdictions—one that puts the responsibility for barring guns from a property on the property owner. In other words, silence is presumed to be consent rather than the other way around.

So casinos, hospitals, schools etc can continue to bar people from bringing weapons onto their property.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court ruled t...»Reply #15