Media Continues to Present Status Quo on Guns As Radical Departure

One good thing about the Wolford decision is that it's giving us plenty to write about. Hemani gave us a bit, too, but since most of the media is pro-marijuana, it wasn't quite as much as we might have liked. Wolford, though, has gotten all the anti-gunners wound up. When they get wound up, they start talking stupid, such as pretending that the vampire rule wasn't a radical departure from the status quo.

While a few states have similar laws, Hawaii's was the one that ended up before the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, it was struck down, and the most shocking part of it is that so many people think this was the wrong decision.

Now, they're engaged in the doomsaying, and the media seems determined to frame this as something very different from reality. 

From The Guardian:

Before the Wolford ruling, the state’s default position was that guns are banned on private property unless express permission to the contrary is given by the owner. Now that has flipped. Unless carrying is explicitly banned, the default is that guns are permitted.

This reversal can put owners of businesses such as malls and hardware stores, run by private companies but open to the public, into tricky positions, said Jeffrey Fagan, a professor of law at Columbia Law School.

Now business owners will have to explicitly make their position on gun-carrying clear, which risks alienating customers who may want to carry their gun inside and those who don’t want to be in the same space with firearms.

“[The Wolford decision] creates an extraordinary burden on private property owners. They’re going to have to take new steps now because the rules about carrying in private property are thrown into question,” Fagan said.

While the Wolford ruling does not spell a total end to prohibiting guns in public and private spaces, it’s another step toward the conservative justices’ goal of undoing laws that burden gun owners, as the one in Hawaii did.

Last week, Cam took a shot at the lefty law professors who engaged in nonsense hysteria over Wolford, but Fagan apparently was smart enough not to go off on social media. Instead, he presented his stupid takes to the mainstream media, which isn't any better.

Wolford doesn't create any extraordinary burden on private property owners. It maintains the status quo that's been the norm for decades and only recently changed in a grand total of, like, five states and in the last couple of years. The vampire rule was the departure from the norm, the radical step away from the status quo that has worked fine for a couple of generations now, and to pretend that suddenly there's a burden that didn't exist before is asinine.

Further, many states allow businesses to prohibit the carrying of a firearm on their property with a sign. If that's an extraordinary burden, then what the hell do you call the permitting requirements in some states?

I know, I know, that's different because...well, because.

The thing is, I can accept people not liking how Wolford broke. What I can accept is their pretending that this is a radical departure from the norm when, if anything, Wolford is restoring the norm, not just the past norm in Hawaii but the same norm that exists in 90 percent of the other states in the US.

You're always entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts, and when you try that and just it to justify your comments, you deserve to be smacked down over it again and again.

Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.