The handwriting was on the wall during the Supreme Court's hearing on Hawaii's Vampire Rule measure. While we may not know the specifics of how the Court will rule, it's pretty clear that they won't be upholding a blasted thing. That's good news for gun owners throughout the nation, particularly in states that have their own versions of this law.
But Hawaiian anti-gunners are stubborn. Normally, this is a trait I can respect, but the problem is that while they know they're about to lose the Wolford case, what they're proposing replace it might actually be worse.
The bill would force all businesses open to the public to place a placard at the door declaring whether guns and "large knives" are allowed, forbidden, or if just one of the two is allowed.
And the NRA's Institution for Legislative Affairs is laying down precisely what they see as the problem.
In what can only be described as peak anti-gun lunacy, the legislature “believes that to ensure public safety, the public should be given notice whether they might encounter lethal and dangerous weapons in places open to the public,” as if vetted, background-checked, and licensed concealed carry holders are other than notoriously law abiding (and as if “large knives” aren’t ubiquitous in every restaurant kitchen).
More generally, the bill represents a legislative mandate to compel business owners into taking sides in a divisive debate most will have no interest in joining. Experience shows proprietors are usually happy to rely on the neutral default in which a customer invited onto the premises of a private business may enter or remain with whatever lawful articles they happen to have with them. As the prior alert noted, businesses “[b]eing forced to choose a side in a contentious public policy debate that is irrelevant to their own operations is a no-win proposition. Thus, most are unlikely to [voluntarily] post signs advertising a position, whether pro- or anti-gun. To invite customers to carry guns would predictably invite the wrath of politically activated firearm prohibitionists for whom ‘name and shame’ campaigns are already an established modus operandi.”
The First Amendment right to expression also includes a right to be free from compelled speech, something the proponents of this bill are as obviously dismissive of as the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Bingo.
See, for all the anti-gun shenanigans at play with this, it's also a free speech issue because it forces businesses to make what is essentially a political declaration or be forced to shutter their doors.
If they say guns are allowed, then they're pro-gun, and anti-gunners will boycott. If they say the opposite, pro-gun folks will boycott.
And let's also note that NRA-ILA notes that the term "large knife" isn't even defined in the bill as it stands. It's literally a fill-in-the-blank thing right now, so we don't even know what they'll classify as a large knife.
This isn't just a case of treating licensed concealed carriers as dangerous entities that should be forced to the fringes of society simply because they choose not to be a victim, but it is a case of forcing every business open to the public to make a political declaration.
This is akin to making it so everyone has to describe their voting history to all potential customers, even if they just wish to be left alone entirely.
There's no good for businesses that can come from this proposal. They'll be forced to take a stand that will push away some customers, no matter what they do, which isn't something we should ever require. Especially as the people who are the real issue are the people who aren't going to pay attention to whatever placard a business opts to put up anyway.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member