Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Igel

(37,681 posts)

5. And that was either shameful

Reply to Manatee (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 25, 2026, 02:01 PM

Yesterday

or a cynical attempt to say, "Hey, you racists, here's a precedent you'll like".

And, no, I don't think that's what Katyal did. I think they were scrambling for any historical justification of any kind. Like the anti-poaching laws, which was carry for a specific reason and not "carry" for the sake of some unknown reason. Rather like we can ban some speech--for a specific reason that suits a government interest; but banning all speech would be a no-no.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels [View all] dalton99a Yesterday OP

I'm in Michigan. Occasional I'll see people at the grocery store wearing a gun and holster Buckeyeblue Yesterday #1

The store can simply post a sign saying no firearms. Igel Yesterday #4

The Supreme Court edhopper Yesterday #2

The Louisiana law Manatee Yesterday #3

And that was either shameful Igel Yesterday #5