Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii (and other states) gun law

[tvc184]

 

The Supreme Court this morning struck down an absolutely ridiculous handgun carry law from Hawaii but other states I passed similar laws.

This case overturned the Hawaii (and other states) Vampire Law. It was called the vampire law because lore has it that a vampire cannot enter your home without being invited in first.

Hawaii and other Progressive/Socialist states were forced by the Supreme Court In NYSRPA v. Bruen to issue licenses to carry at least concealed handguns. About half a dozen states threw a temper tantrum and said basically, okay, we will comply with the “shall issue handgun licenses” order from the Supreme Court.

However…..

We will pass laws that say you can carry a concealed handgun in public as long as you have a license, but you can essentially never leave the public roadway. Like a vampire, you cannot go onto or into a private property without being invited into/onto the property specifically by the owner. To do so would cause you to commit the felony of possessing a firearm on private property without consent.

Basically, it meant that the state will issue the license as required by the Supreme Court but it could never be used because the first time you drive off of a public roadway to get gasoline or buy a Dr Pepper on the way home, you would become a felon.

This case was so egregious that the Supreme Court took it away from the Ninth Circuit Court in California and didn’t wait for a ruling, which is almost unheard of.

So this morning the Supreme Court dropped the hammer on Hawaii (and CA and NY and NH…….) by saying the vampire laws clearly violate the Second Amendment on its face. This is copied directly from the Supreme Court website:

“Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 13–24.

(a) The restrictions imposed by Hawaii’s challenged law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively unconstitutional. No party disputes that petitioners are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to “bear” “Arms.” Therefore, “the plain text of the Second Amendment protects” what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense……”

It naturally goes on for many pages like always to describe why they came to that conclusion. The partial summary quoted above from the Supreme Court website cuts to the quick. IT’S CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The case is Wolford v. Lopez

And….

Three Supreme Court justices voted against this ruling.

Any guesses?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣