https://www.kitv.com/news/local/hawaii-legislators-react-to-supreme-court-gun-ruling/article_6c662189-3943-4df8-b324-e47d848993a8.html

U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono:

“Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, largely because of our historically strong gun safety laws. Once again, this out-of-control Supreme Court majority is placing political ideology about protecting lives, making our state and our country less safe by expanding the presence of firearms. As this Court exacerbates our nation's gun violence crisis, I remain committed to working towards the common-sense gun safety policies our country desperately needs.”

U.S. Rep. Jill N. Tokuda:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is wrong for Hawaii, wrong for public safety, and the wrong precedent for states and communities working to keep people safe.

Hawaii’s law did not take away anyone’s right to own or carry a firearm. It simply said that before bringing a gun onto someone else’s private property, you should get permission first.

That should not be controversial. It is a matter of basic respect.

Businesses and property owners set basic rules every day about what is allowed on their property and what is not. No shirt, no shoes, no service. But when Hawaii set a commonsense safety standard for firearms, this Court decided that even asking permission went too far.

This ruling puts guns ahead of Hawaii’s ability to determine what safety looks like in our own communities and businesses. It shifts the burden onto property owners, workers, and families who deserve to feel safe in the places where they live, work, shop, and gather. I will keep fighting for commonsense gun safety laws that protect our people, respect everyone’s rights, and prioritizes our communities’ ability to determine what safety looks like for ourselves.”

i don't recollect that "shirt and shoes" was in the Bill of Rights.  Seriously, the Constitution is lost on these people.  Yet they take the oath ...

i don't recollect that "shirt and shoes" was in the Bill of Rights.  Seriously, the Constitution is lost on these people.  Yet they take the oath ...

Exactly.

Chief among the causes of prudent men and women arming themselves (beyond just the local authorities "catch & release" policy with respect to violent criminals), is that, apparently, it is not an actionable offense to pursue the destruction of our civil society and overthrow of our country and its institutions - starting right at the top with naked aggression against the Constitution of the United States of America - on the part of "political parties," who, by some defect in human cognition, are allowed to operate openly as if such treason were "legitimate."

Hence we have "hey you anti-communist assholes, check out this openly unconstitutional law we just passed in your state voiding your protections under the Bill of Rights - see you in court!"

... over and over again, without end.

What is a citizen left with, in such a situation as we have in this county now?

Tyranny and freedom cannot coexist.

It is war.

As far as the parks, beaches, places that serve alcohol, banks, shared parking lots, etc on the preliminary injunction (without a "no guns" sign on private property), you can still carry there for now however that may change suddenly in the near future.  Depends what the 9th appeals court decides to do, keep the PI in place or remove it.

It's possible they may change their mind and keep the PI in place since they have to consider the SCOTUS opinion in their decision.  The SCOTUS decision was much broader and clarified a lot of things, like narrowing down the scope for historical analogies.   The SCOTUS decision was at the high end of our expectations.

Clarifications to the owners permission.  Permission for CCW is implied unless otherwise indicated.

For parks & beaches, the district court preliminary injunction is still in place as the en banc court never ordered implementation of their decision striking it down due to the SCOTUS appeal.  However the PI could possibly be overturned as the appeals court receives the SCOTUS opinion and has to decide on what to do next.  The Senator Keohokalole mentioned beaches and parks currently banned in a news article, but that was wrong.

As far as the parks, beaches, places that serve alcohol, banks, shared parking lots, etc on the preliminary injunction (without a "no guns" sign on private property), you can still carry there for now however that may change suddenly in the near future.  Depends what the 9th appeals court decides to do, keep the PI in place or remove it.

It's possible they may change their mind and keep the PI in place since they have to consider the SCOTUS opinion in their decision.  The SCOTUS decision was much broader and clarified a lot of things, like narrowing down the scope for historical analogies.   The SCOTUS decision was at the high end of our expectations.

Many Thanks Zippz for sharing this authoritative take on the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision here - it is greatly appreciated!