The state of Hawaii has a history of restricting guns. This is even worse in the city of Honolulu, which has an established history of trying to restrict the Second Amendment.
Now, they're looking to ban guns from “sensitive places.”
One huge problem, as noted in the linked post above, is that the definition is very broad and very prohibitive of people's rights.
But one op-ed writer claims that it's not about that.
In a span of one week in November there were two mass shootings in the U.S. — seven died in a shooting at a Walmart Supercenter in Chesapeake, Virginia, and five were killed in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs.
It's hard to believe that fewer deaths would have occurred if more people had been carrying guns as defense. But that's what some gun advocates in Hawaii are saying in opposition to Bill 57, which would prohibit people from carrying concealed firearms in so-called sensitive places like schools, churches and parks. The Honolulu City Council passed the first reading of the bill on Tuesday.
I'm sorry, but someone's inability to believe a fact doesn't actually change facts.
Further, let's also note that churches and schools are deemed sensitive in a number of places, yet they're also among the most “popular” targets for mass shooters. Why is that? Could it be because they know the risk of meeting an armed citizen is minimal?
Moving on…
I don't doubt there are gun owners who are deft at shooting. I also don't doubt their desire to protect their families and communities.
But can that be said for everyone who carries a firearm? Can we trust the skill of everyone who decides to use a weapon in a public place? At a crowded beach? On a playground? At a school?
It seems like a huge risk — and, honestly, one that I'm not comfortable with.
Again, your comfort is irrelevant.
Now, is every person who carries a gun a crack shot? No, but they don't have to be. They have to be good enough, and even if they're not that great, they can still distract an attacker so others can escape.
Further, schools are gun-free zones all over the nation, yet school shootings are thought of as relatively common. They're generally less common in states that allow licensed people to carry on campus.
Additionally, the people you have to worry about aren't going to care about the law. They never have and never will.
Criminals and mass shooters carry regardless of any regulation on the books. Those are the ones likely to present a gun and start shooting without cause. That's not something the law-abiding are known for doing by any stretch.
Let's be real here, this is about violating people's rights. It's a restriction that doesn't just tell them they can't have a gun at the beach or a park, it tells them they either can't carry it anywhere else along that trip or risk their gun being stolen when it's left behind in the car.
It disarms people just trying to live their lives.
So yeah, it violates people's rights and it uses a very broad definition of “sensitive place” in order to discourage people from carrying. It doesn't go quite as far as New York's did, but since that's already run into legal problems, that's not surprising.
Read the original article in its entirety at bearingarms.com.
A hundred years ago, most people had at least seen a gun, nowadays, they have only their TV or Fortnite experience to go by. They have no respect for these tools or how, when and where they could or should be used. And a hundred years ago it was easier to find an American with common sense. We don’t teach that in school any more. So the only people with firearms experience in the public are the criminals who use these tools every day to ply their “trade” while Americans more and more have no trade to hang their hat on. Why wouldn’t they be scared of guns like the government wants them to be, hide their heads in the sand and obey, like good little monkeys for the government. What the government is doing is “infringing” as the Second Amendment to the Constitution forbids. So sooner or later they will have to pay the price and everyone will have to learn the hard way and quickly all about guns.
Our founders said more than once that laws that violate our Constitution can and should be NULLIFIED. This is a few paragraphs on nullification from the Tenth Amendment Center.com
There are two definitions. One is legal. When a court strikes down a law, it literally wipes it off the books. But there is also a practical definition – to make something of no value or consequence. When we talk about nullification happening today, we generally mean it in the practical sense – to end the practical effect of a federal act. Here is a succinct definition of nullification as we apply it: Any act or set of acts which has as its result a particular law being rendered legally null and void, or unenforceable in practice. Madison gave us a blueprint on how to do this in Federalist #46. He suggested four steps to take on counteract and stop federal programs – whether “warrantable” or “unwarrantable,” the most significant being a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.” The federal government involves itself in almost every aspect of life, but depends on state assistance to do almost everything. If states refuse to help, it becomes nearly impossible for the feds to enforce their laws or implement their programs. We can use this strategy to undermine and nullify all kinds of federal acts in practice – from warrantless spying, to gun control, to plant prohibition and more.
Recent Example:
More than half of the country has refused to get the new “real ID” that was signed into law in May of 2005 and original deadline was 2008, because Americans have refused to comply the deadline has forced the government to push the date of compliance from 2008 to 2012 then 2014, 2021, 2022 and now 2025.
There’s thousands of Unconstitutional firearms laws on the books, enough people refusing to comply with them can eventually nullify those laws.
Just more of the old “stupid is as stupid does” movement trying for absolute control.
I read so many stories about the violation of the 2nd amendment , but I almost never see anything about Illinois violations. With making you buy your rite with their F.O.I.D. card and their concealed carry permit both costing the person financially. And the fact that they both put you in a data base that is easily accessible to criminal entities that can use this information to endanger the life of these constitutionally protected citizens. There is absolutely no plus to the F.O.I.D. card you still have to fill out federal forms to buy a gun. The only way they could justify the F.O.I.D. card would be if you could go into a gun shop and present your card and bypass any further paperwork .
Eff Hawaii.
If Im a tourist in HI & see Guns Id feel safer unless felons are loose in Islands
Fine for trained armed citizens Yes
May boost tourism OK
It would if there were such a thing as human rights.
The Only One with a right to anything is our God and Creator. Even life isn’t a right except to God. It’s inherent in who He is as Creator.
For the rest of us, life (and everything that comes with it, is a gift from and responsibility to the One who created us. It’s inherent in who we are as the created.
See blog article “Right: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Diminity” at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Search title on our Blog.
As for alleged firearms’ rights: America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founders replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium. Go to Bible versus Constitution dot org. Go to our Video page and scroll down to title.
See also online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on the top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 12.
The last time I checked there is no one or no organization that is responsible for my personal safety and security except little old me A case can be made for outside aid (fire, ems, LE perhaps even military etc) assisting in certain circumstances. Except for those circumstances, they need to butt out. End of discussion. Period.
If you read page 58 of the “Buffalo Shooter’s Manifesto” you will see exactly how and why a criminal shooter picks which venues or places to target. It is always a “Gun Free Zone”., Secondly, if there are security guards, they are always untrained, incompetent and under-armed. His biggest point is to only go to locations in cities and states that do not allow concealed carry permits. His biggest fear was that a concealed carry person could kill him and he would not know how were permit holders. This is what most rational people would surmise, so there it is. I do not think that “Open-Carry” is proper. If you have a valid Concealed Weapon Carry Permit, which involved firearm training on a range along with total familiarity with the laws that is part of the training, you should be allowed to carry concealed anywhere, just like a police officer. Most CCP holders have received more live fire training than average police officers which is astounding in itself. The chance of a properly vetted and trained conceal carry permit holder of committing a crime is slim and zero! Think about what this criminal said and think about what I have said and put forth. Thank you and let us stop this senseless crime.
I’ve never understood the reasoning behind sensitive places. These are the places so designated that puts a neon sign on their doors! Come rob, maim, rape destroy, burn, and murder at my site!