Actually, yes, barring guns from places is violating rights

Glock Model 21" by Michael @ NW Lens is marked with .

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.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member