After oral arguments at the Supreme Court earlier this month, the writing is on the wall for Hawaii’s “vampire rule” requiring property owners to give express permission before someone lawfully carrying a concealed firearm can set foot on their premises.
Hawaii Democrats aren’t giving up trying to make it as difficult as possible to exercise your right to carry, though. Two bills introduced this session are designed to chill the exercise of our right to bear arms, and both are even more flagrantly unconstitutional than the “vampire rule,” in my opinion.
SB 3039 is a first-of-its-kind gun control bill that mandates anybody who’s lawfully carrying a concealed firearm must also carry an “an electric gun.” If a concealed carry holder is caught with a pistol but without a stun gun, that would be cause for their concealed carry permit to be revoked.
The legislature finds that carrying a lethal firearm as the only means of defense often increases danger to the public. Data demonstrates that lethal firearms intended to be wielded by a victim to defend themselves often end up being used against the victim or being used to kill another person, instead of being used successfully for self-defense. Other times, individuals using firearms in self-defense injure or kill innocent bystanders.
The legislature believes that carrying a lethal firearm for self-defense can often escalate a dangerous situation, rather than de-escalate it, and that requiring individuals carrying firearms to also carry non-lethal options for self-defense will improve safety for the carrier, the public, and law enforcement.
Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to:
(1) Prohibit persons with a license to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm on the licensee’s person without also carrying an electric gun on the licensee’s person; and
(2) Require a person’s license to carry a firearm be revoked if the licensee carries a firearm without also carrying an electric gun.
On its face, the bill would increase the cost to carry by requiring gun owners to purchase a device they may not ever intend to use, thereby reducing the number of Hawaiians exercising their right to bear arms. SB 3039 also flunks the Bruen test because there is absolutely no evidence to be found around either 1791 or 1868 of a national tradition requiring people bearing arms to also carry less lethal devices like a hatchet or club.
SB 3041, meanwhile, seeks to replace the “vampire rule” with a law requiring “businesses or restaurants open to the public to post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.”
A green placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant does not allow firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises;
(2) A yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both; and
(3) A red placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows firearms and large knives to be brought onto the premises.
Just like SB 3039, this bill flunks the Bruen test. Historically, the default has been that if property owners want to prohibit people from bearing arms on their premises they need to let them know. If Hawaii was merely requiring establishments that want to prohibit concealed carry to post signage to that effect there wouldn’t be an issue. But there’s nothing like this in our national tradition of gun ownership.
Even if we set aside the constitutional concerns, SB 3041 is nonsensical. Suppose a concealed carry licensee walks up to a restaurant and sees a yellow placard at the entrance. How are they supposed to know whether the establishment allows firearms or large knives? They know it’s one or the other, but they’re just left to guess as to which one is allowed.
I can’t imagine many business owners getting behind this bill, much less Hawaii’s growing number of gun owners and concealed carry holders. And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever the Supreme Court says when it releases its opinion in Wolford v. Lopez ends up invalidating this bill if it does make it into law. In fact, I hope someone brings these bills to the justices’ attention. It’s clear that Hawaii Democrats intend on keeping up their continued harassment of individuals trying to exercise a fundamental civil right, and SCOTUS can and should head them off at the pass in the Wolford decision.
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, including capitalizing on police failures and making them a gun issue.
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.
Read the full article here
