Heads Up Hawaii (and elsewhere)

[John Kloehr]

With clear hints Hawaii is going to lose in Wolford (5-4, 6-3, or maybe even 7-2?), it is doubling down with SB3041 (with my bold in the proposed text):

 

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB3041/id/3331739

 

Setting aside red and green being the most commonly confused colors for those who are color-blind, Not setting aside red is danger and green is safe... What if the law required bakers to post if they would make a "coming out" cake? What is the color coding was red for no and green for yes? This is government mandated speech and I find it clearly unconstitutional and also reprehensible.

 

"

 

 

     SECTION 1.  The legislature finds that, for the past two hundred years, the State's public has had an expectation of entering private restaurants and places of business without encountering lethal firearms or large knives.  However, the United States Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2133 (2022) changed this expectation, which has made life more dangerous for the State's residents by allowing lethal firearms and large knives in many places where there was previously no expectation they would be encountered by the public.

     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.

     Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to:

     (1)  Require 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; and

     (2)  Require the department of law enforcement to provide businesses and restaurants with free and easily downloadable placards.

     SECTION 2.  Chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

     "§134-    Placarding; notice of property owner's permission to carry firearms or large knives at businesses or restaurants open to the public.  (a)  Any business or restaurant open to the public shall post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.  The placard shall be posted in a location clearly visible to the general public and patrons entering the business or restaurant.

     (b)  The placard shall not be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden, or removed.  It shall be unlawful to operate a business or restaurant unless the placard is posted in accordance with this section.

     (c)  By January 1, 2027, the department of law enforcement shall provide businesses and restaurants with free and easily downloadable placards.  The placards shall be color-coded as follows:

     (1)  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.

     (d)  For the purposes of this section:

     "Business" has the same meaning as defined in section 328J‑1.

     "Large knife" means a knife with a blade more than       inches in length.

     "Open to the public" means enclosed or partially enclosed areas to which the public is invited or permitted and areas within any building available for use by or accessible to the general public during the normal course of business conducted therein by private entities, including educational facilities, financial institutions, health care facilities, hotel and motel lobbies, lanais, laundromats, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, and waiting rooms, but does not include a private residence unless it is used as a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.

     "Restaurant" has the same meaning as defined in section 328J-1."

     SECTION 3.  This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.

     SECTION 4.  If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

     SECTION 5.  New statutory material is underscored.

     SECTION 6.  This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2027.

 

"

[Blackwater 53393]

It’s time for SCOTUS to order DOJ to prosecute any such case in any state or territory both criminally and civilly, both against the state as a whole and against the individual or individuals who legislate these ridiculous laws into existence!!

[Sedalia Dave]

My take on the proposal.  Requiring every business to pick a side is wrong. Plain and simple. By requiring every business to pick a side you are making all businesses a target by one side or the other.

 

That said, I would support what Texas has done by only requiring businesses to opt out. That way only those that are adamantly opposed have to say so. The rest of the community can just carry on.

 

In Texas if a business doesn't want to allow Concealed Carry on their premises they have to post a sign that meets very specific requirements. Once Open carry became legal another very specific sign is required to be posted. This allows a business to post no sign, a sign that prohibits only open carry, a sign that prohibits only concealed carry, or two signs that prohibit both.  The signs have to be posted at ALL public entrances and are large enough that you would have to be blind not to see one.  Besides the minimum font and specific wording, part of what makes them so large is the requirement that the signs be bilingual.

[Blackwater 53393]

Similar law in Tennessee! Has to be of a minimum size, must be posted at every public entrance to be valid, very specific font and wording!

 

Perfectly acceptable solution. You don’t want my gun in your place of business/worship? Fine! I will go elsewhere!!

[Eyesa Horg]

49 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Similar law in Tennessee! Has to be of a minimum size, must be posted at every public entrance to be valid, very specific font and wording!

 

Perfectly acceptable solution. You don’t want my gun in your place of business/worship? Fine! I will go elsewhere!!

Works for me! Ya don't generally see any signs up here. I've been in a restaurant in Maine at least a dozen times and the last time as I was leaving and holding the door for somebody, I noticed the 4"x 4" sign. The pistol with the red circle and line. Oh well. Probably won't notice the next time either!

[Blackwater 53393]

Since I most often carry openly, I’m pretty conscious of prohibiting signs!

 

I was entering the office of my audiologist the other day and noticed that there was now a sign prohibiting carry.

 

It’s the first time that I’ve entered a place where there was one of those signs, but I was just getting back on my feet and if I walked back to the car, I wasn’t going to return.

 

I asked my doctor about the new sign and he just laughed. As it turns out, the parent company had sent a guy in with new signage and he stuck that no guns sign up without asking. “I didn’t know he put that thing there! IGNORE IT!!” he said and walked me back to the exam room!

 

It was gone the next time I went there! 😜

[John Kloehr]

14 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Since I most often carry openly, I’m pretty conscious of prohibiting signs!

 

I was entering the office of my audiologist the other day and noticed that there was now a sign prohibiting carry.

 

It’s the first time that I’ve entered a place where there was one of those signs, but I was just getting back on my feet and if I walked back to the car, I wasn’t going to return.

 

I asked my doctor about the new sign and he just laughed. As it turns out, the parent company had sent a guy in with new signage and he stuck that no guns sign up without asking. “I didn’t know he put that thing there! IGNORE IT!!” he said and walked me back to the exam room!

 

It was gone the next time I went there! 😜

My eye guy is not signed. Most medical providers are. A key (Tennessee) test is if the office "performs procedures." If so, it must be signed by law. Measuring eyes is not a procedure.

 

One of the places I go for other doc visits is signed, but not per the correct legal requirements. Sometimes not good to be the stinker or become a test case. Even if not properly signed, and arguably even if it is, still (supposedly) need to be told. Only willful refusal is an infraction.

 

And another important point for Tennessee, at this point it is a "gun crime" as compared to simple trespassing. This depends entirely on the state.

 

I'm not sure where the line should be, this particular line (signage) has to consider the right to carry, right of the property owner to exclude, and some power of the government to define sensitive places. I'm not sure the government should define a medical office as sensitive, fully recognize the doctor in charge can exclude. Am also sure Hawaii's latest attempt to mandate speech (as compared to silent historical default) along with Hawaii's legislated colors is not constitutional. I have not done enough research to know where this line was in 1791.

 

Also recognize states in general are allowed to "experiment" with laws to some extent, yet laws regarding having a business or if a yellow traffic light is permissive or restrictive is very different from laws involving any enumerated right. There just should not be much wiggle room on rights. I also have gripes as to vehicle storage laws in different states, if "direct control" means on body, allows "purse" or backpack carry, or a magnetic holder on the dash. And if the glove box is OK or not. Duty to inform, stand your ground, castle doctrine, and does that apply to a vehicle or a hotel room or a tent in the woods. There are so many ways to get tripped up when crossing a border even if the next state does have reciprocity.

[Blackwater 53393]

My foot doctor is in a building that shares space with several other doctors. The building is open to carry, concealed or otherwise. There is one office that has a no gun sign on the door, but my foot doc actually carried at times until he retired and the staff that works and run his business now are fine with things the way they are!!

 

My regular doctor owns the building that he is in. He moved out of a small hospital, in part because they prohibited carry!

 

My eye doctor welcomes carry as well!

[Rye Miles #13621]

Here in Ohio when CCW passed many stores were putting up NO GUN signs. Ohioans for Concealed carry came up with this card. I passed out many and signs came down. There’s virtually no signs except in some bars and restaurants. Great idea for other states too.
 

 

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

Without icons those signs will confuse Japanese tourists (and there are many of them).  Signs strictly in English will not be widely understood.

[John Kloehr]

1 minute ago, Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971 said:

Without icons those signs will confuse Japanese tourists (and there are many of them).  Signs strictly in English will not be widely understood.

Agree, but they will not be carrying guns so does not affect them. What bugs me is the color selection and signage is not geared and designed to inform carriers, it is designed to "warn" non carriers. Thus it amounts to government speech and is a violation of the 1st Amendment designed to interfere with 2nd Amendment rights. Just do this like sane states:

 

 

As a carrier, I get it. A non-carrier can draw whatever from it but it is the proprietor's speech, within historical property rights, informs me as a carrier, and does not convey a state-implied doctrine. The Hawaii law goes too far.