{"id":86157,"date":"2022-09-30T10:24:15","date_gmt":"2022-09-30T15:24:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=86157"},"modified":"2022-09-30T10:24:15","modified_gmt":"2022-09-30T15:24:15","slug":"86157","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=86157","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Anti-gun politicians aim for private property gun ban<\/a><\/p>\n

From Hawaii to New Jersey anti-gun officials are scrambling to adopt sweeping restrictions on the right to carry modeled after New York\u2019s latest infringement on our Second Amendment rights. That includes a de-facto ban on concealed carry on all private property, despite language in the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Bruen\u00a0<\/em>that made it clear broad and expansive \u201csensitive places\u201d don\u2019t comport with a general right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.<\/p>\n

On today\u2019s Bearing Arms\u2019 Cam & Co we\u2019re taking a look at a couple of the latest indigo-blue locales to adopt New York\u2019s model legislation; Hawaii County and the state of New Jersey. Both places have long been hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, and in the wake of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision striking down the \u201cgood cause\u201d requirement that the jurisdictions have used to deny almost every applicant in years past, the goal is to now restrict\u00a0where\u00a0<\/em>folks can carry as much as possible in addition to continuing to impose as many barriers as possible to all those who want to exercise that right.<\/p>\n

Hawaii County council member Aaron Chung says Supreme Court \u201copened the door\u201d for his exhaustive list of places where concealed carry may soon be banned by not explicitly defining the limits of \u2018sensitive places\u201d, but he\u2019s ignoring what Justice Clarence Thomas actually had to say about trying to broadly define most places open to the public (including all private property by default) as off-limits to the exercise of our Second Amendment rights; \u201cexpanding the category of \u2018sensitive places\u2019 simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of \u201csensitive places\u201d far too broadly. Respondents\u2019 argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
Forcing all private property owners to positively affirm that the right to carry is welcomed, rather than demanding that private property owners let visitors know that guns are banned on the premise, is a complete reversal of how we typically treat our constitutional rights. Again quoting Thomas in Bruen<\/em>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not \u201ca second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant\u2019s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t know of any other right that\u2019s de-facto forbidden on private property unless it\u2019s explicitly authorized in writing by the property owner either. I\u2019ve never once encountered a sign on a business that said \u201cFreedom of Speech Welcome Here\u201d. Then again, I\u2019ve also never run across a law charging people with a felony for unlawfully uttering their opinion in someone else\u2019s home without prior permission as New York\u2019s de-facto ban on concealed carry on private property does.<\/p>\n

The glaring constitutional issues with this language isn\u2019t worrisome to anti-gun politicians like New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, however. He\u2019s still hellbent on criminalizing the right to carry\u00a0in almost all circumstances<\/a>\u00a0by adopting the New York model.<\/p>\n

Murphy\u00a0issued an executive order<\/a>\u00a0shortly after the court ruling, requiring state agencies to review their statutes and regulations and determine whether they could designate gun-free zones. But so far, no legislation barring guns from public spaces in New Jersey has been introduced.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, Murphy said churches, entertainment venues and even private property \u201cunless you the homeowner explicitly says otherwise\u201d would be designated as gun-free areas under a proposed bill.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

We need that now based on the actions of this very right-wing U.S. Supreme Court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He said action hasn\u2019t come more quickly for \u201cmostly benign reasons here\u201d \u2014 due to other legislative activity and because the Legislature only recently came back into session.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t want to speak for [the Legislature], but I\u2019m confident this ball will be rolling, and God willing, will get something sooner than later,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

God willing, the courts will have shut down the expansive list of \u201csensitive places\u201d by the time New Jersey\u2019s legislature gets to work on its own list of gun-free zones. If that doesn\u2019t happen, then the state will be facing another lawsuit just like New York; one I\u2019m confident it will ultimately lose. We still have plenty of challenges ahead of us, but these anti-gun politicians are on the wrong side of history and the Constitution and we aren\u2019t going to rest until we\u2019ve secured our right to keep and bear arms from their authoritarian power grabs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anti-gun politicians aim for private property gun ban From Hawaii to New Jersey anti-gun officials are scrambling to adopt sweeping restrictions on the right to carry modeled after New York\u2019s latest infringement on our Second Amendment rights. That includes a de-facto ban on concealed carry on all private property, despite language in the Supreme Court\u2019s … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,50,24,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-enemies-foreign-domestic","category-goobermint","category-rights","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86157","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=86157"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86157\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":86158,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86157\/revisions\/86158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=86157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=86157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=86157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}