virtually all of the court's six Republican appointees seemed to agree with the challengers that the law, which requires the gun owners to obtain express permission from the property owner, violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
#3 | Posted by truthhurts

Hawaii's position is supported by the MAGA created new (ridiculous) requirements under Bruen.
Under Bruen, for a gun law to be legal, it must align with our "historical tradition of firearm regulation."
And there is ample historical precedent of guns being banned from establishments.
There's a write-up about it in Reason or some other left-center source.

Trump Says Americans 'Can't Have Guns' At Protests.

Funny.
There were guns at the Cliven Bundy protests.
There were guns at the Michigan State House protests.
There were guns at the Unite The Right March in Charlottesville.
Kyle Rittenhouse brought a gun to a protest and became a Hero Of The Crybaby Right.

Now our Republican President says We The People can't have guns at protests.

Hey Republicans.
Is it fascism yet?

What would Charlie Kirk do?

Charlie was raising a fuss about IDF doing exactly this kind of thing to Palestinians, in the weeks and months before his death.

That's why Nick Fuentes ordered Charlie Kirk's assassination.

(this kind of thing = ICE terrorizing and executing civilians)

"When you research the history of it the enforcement was highly selective and political."

That's the whole point.
That's what Republicans want.
You're good at some things, but playing dumb isn't one of them.

"Wild times when people start referencing comically corrupt implementations of gun control"

Yeah. You can thank Republicans and Bruen for that.

But you won't. Accountability is another thing you aren't very good at.