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!

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 ...

"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." WITH A SIGN

What's next after Wolford?  Gun grabbers will still be at it...

"Remember early this year when there was a bill in the Hawaii legislature to make every business put up a sign that said one way or another whether guns were allowed.  I really thought that bill was an outlier bill written by a Hawaii legislator.  Now that same proposal is being pushed nationally by Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars who are law professors at Yale University and University of Alabama and the original authors of the Vampire Rule which was struck down in Wolford. I expect that all five states that had Vampire Rules will propose this law in their coming legislative sessions."  Alan Beck

Gun-Free Stores Still on States’ Menu After Supreme Court Ruling
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/gun-free-stores-still-on-states-menu-after-supreme-court-ruling
But states don’t need to stop there. They can adopt a better solution: an affirmative-choice law. Under such a law, stores open to the public would be required, as a condition of doing business with the public, to disclose whether concealed firearms are allowed.

The 2026 Hawaii Bill SB3041 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3041

What's next after Wolford?  Gun grabbers will still be at it...

"Remember early this year when there was a bill in the Hawaii legislature to make every business put up a sign that said one way or another whether guns were allowed.  I really thought that bill was an outlier bill written by a Hawaii legislator.  Now that same proposal is being pushed nationally by Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars who are law professors at Yale University and University of Alabama and the original authors of the Vampire Rule which was struck down in Wolford. I expect that all five states that had Vampire Rules will propose this law in their coming legislative sessions."  Alan Beck

Gun-Free Stores Still on States’ Menu After Supreme Court Ruling
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/gun-free-stores-still-on-states-menu-after-supreme-court-ruling
But states don’t need to stop there. They can adopt a better solution: an affirmative-choice law. Under such a law, stores open to the public would be required, as a condition of doing business with the public, to disclose whether concealed firearms are allowed.

The 2026 Hawaii Bill SB3041 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3041

Yes they always intended to coerce the local community into reflexively banning law-abiding citizens from having the means, under the 2nd Amendment, to defend themselves or other innocents from the violent criminals that they continually release into the community.

They know the job is easy here - heck, their minions already associate civilian concealed carry permit holders - arguably the most vetted anti-criminals in our society, as the danger - not the ACTUAL violent criminals who already prey on them.

No signs here ever saying violent criminals are not welcome …. this is so mental it’s nauseating.

The Vampire rule was the front door.  Now it’s closed they’ll go around back.

We (gun owners) are a very large community here - on all Islands.  Looks like the fight is going right down to your local store.

These business owners need to feel the reality that they are idiotically going to war with a huge part of Hawaii - THE LAW-ABIDING PART.

Thanks for posting this zippz - the cartoon says it all.

Seeing as how, the State, after failing to enact the Vampire Rule, is apparently now seeking to conscript local businesses to accomplish the same violation of 2nd Amendment rights via their private property rights, I wonder how many of those local businesses understand that their masters are transferring significant litigation risk to them?

Probably zero.

It is a well-established legal principle that liability for deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is generally reserved for public entities acting under color of state law, however it can in some circumstances apply to private entities.

What does "color of state law" mean?  It seems there are three tests, from the internets: https://www.maddinhauser.com/civil-rights-exposure-of-private-entities-under-section-1983-avoiding-the-fray/

"The Sixth Circuit recognizes three tests for determining whether a private entity is subject to Sec. 1983 exposure due to its association with a public body. See Memphis, TN Area Local American Postal Workers Union v. Memphis, 361 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2004).

The first is the public function test. This requires the private entity to exercise powers that are traditionally reserved to the state. For example, a contract that expressly delegates the functions of a state actor to a private entity, with that entity actually performing those functions, would likely create exposure.

The second is the state compulsion test. This requires a plaintiff to establish that the state actor encouraged or even coerced a private party to undertake a particular activity. If the private entity undertakes that activity, even if it is pressured to do so, it will likely be considered to have performed a governmental function under the color of state law.

The third is the nexus test. This requires a relationship between the state actor and private entity that is sufficiently close enough to attribute the private entity’s actions to the state. This test could be satisfied not only by the language of the contract between the parties, but the conduct of the private entity’s employees in performing that contract."

So there is no confusion about the strategy I'm floating here:

1. It's based on the reality that it's easy to sue private entities - our legal system is nefarious that way.

2. The totalitarians have defaulted to a strategy of outsourcing their evil to private businesses - but private businesses are extremely vulnerable to litigation, therefore their weapon is extremely fragile.

3. There's nothing to stop any lawful concealed carry permit holder from suing a private entity who forces them to disarm on their premises - as the State does on its premises - for deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - acting under color of state law, here in Hawaii.  You in fact have a very long, visible train of evidence of State action to bring about this very end.

4. The objective is NOT the expectation of winning necessarily, but rather the horror and massive expense the business will experience for being a willing co-conspirator in the violation of the Bill of Rights.  Ask any personal injury lawyer - business will just settle to get rid of the huge cost and distraction from business - it won't go to trial.

The totalitarians have already taxed and regulated local businesses to the point of extinction already - before they started leaning on them to violate the constitution for them - if businesses had any information to suggest they would be exposed to liability  - all except for a tiny raving few would listen to the pitch, nod their heads, and then walk away having nothing to do with it.

I'm just putting this out there to stimulate some discussion, somewhere, among those who are properly knowledgable, to evaluate and capitalize on the weaknesses of the totalitarian's chosen strategy here.

It seems highly likely now that this is how it's going to go, so we need to think about effective responses to undermine them.