First time in U.S History, could help CCW holders here in California

[ShootFirstFirster]

Balls and strikes. What say you?

 

[weimer20]

Certainly prefer this over some of their other recent actions such as,

Supported national gun registration- Demonized machineguns- Called guns "weapons of war"- Expanded government power over 2A- Said SBRs are for criminals

Hopefully this tree bears fruit.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Brief: https://nssfpdf.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/WolfordAmicusBrief.pdf

Via ChatGPT:

Here’s a clean 2-paragraph summary of the NSSF amicus brief (filed Nov 24, 2025) in Wolford v. Lopez:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation argues that Hawaii’s law—which presumptively bans concealed-carry permit holders from carrying on all private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission—is unconstitutional under Bruen. They emphasize that carrying a firearm for self-defense is squarely protected by the Second Amendment, and that states cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny by shifting the default rule from “carry is allowed unless the owner prohibits it” to “carry is forbidden unless the owner permits it.” NSSF maintains that this opt-in model is historically unprecedented, overly burdensome, and transforms almost all of modern commercial life into a prohibited zone.

On the historical-tradition analysis, the brief contends that Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit rely on inapplicable analogues, such as old trespass or anti-poaching laws, which were not public-carry restrictions. NSSF states that there is no historical tradition supporting a state-imposed blanket ban on carry across public-facing private property. The brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit, arguing that Hawaii’s law flunks both the textual and historical steps of the Bruen test and would allow states to recreate the same broad public-carry prohibitions that Bruen rejected.


What’s the significance of the DOJ filed Amicus Brief?
A DOJ amicus brief is significant because it represents the official position of the United States on how the Supreme Court should interpret the Second Amendment, which gives it unusually high influence compared to any other amicus. When DOJ weighs in, it guides how the Court frames the legal question, how lower courts apply Bruen, and how future federal policy will align. In a 2A case, DOJ’s support can meaningfully strengthen one side by signaling that the Executive Branch believes a particular interpretation of public carry, historical tradition, or sensitive-place doctrine should become national precedent.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

A better way to look at this is not using AI for 2A content

But what is really important about this case is the 9th circuit ruled that the law for Hawaii was constitutional while also ruling the same law in California was not. This is unusual as it's literally a double standard and a circuit split within the same circuit. Possibly the first of its kind

The second issue is that this law mandates speech by the government which clearly flies in the face of the 1st amendment. The best the government can do is have the business post signs saying guns are prohibited. But can't say all are prohibited unless they say otherwise. But either is on shaky ground with respects to bruen and history

 

[Drowned Rat]

Brief: https://nssfpdf.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/WolfordAmicusBrief.pdf

Via ChatGPT:

Here’s a clean 2-paragraph summary of the NSSF amicus brief (filed Nov 24, 2025) in Wolford v. Lopez:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation argues that Hawaii’s law—which presumptively bans concealed-carry permit holders from carrying on all private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission—is unconstitutional under Bruen. They emphasize that carrying a firearm for self-defense is squarely protected by the Second Amendment, and that states cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny by shifting the default rule from “carry is allowed unless the owner prohibits it” to “carry is forbidden unless the owner permits it.” NSSF maintains that this opt-in model is historically unprecedented, overly burdensome, and transforms almost all of modern commercial life into a prohibited zone.

On the historical-tradition analysis, the brief contends that Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit rely on inapplicable analogues, such as old trespass or anti-poaching laws, which were not public-carry restrictions. NSSF states that there is no historical tradition supporting a state-imposed blanket ban on carry across public-facing private property. The brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit, arguing that Hawaii’s law flunks both the textual and historical steps of the Bruen test and would allow states to recreate the same broad public-carry prohibitions that Bruen rejected.


What’s the significance of the DOJ filed Amicus Brief?
A DOJ amicus brief is significant because it represents the official position of the United States on how the Supreme Court should interpret the Second Amendment, which gives it unusually high influence compared to any other amicus. When DOJ weighs in, it guides how the Court frames the legal question, how lower courts apply Bruen, and how future federal policy will align. In a 2A case, DOJ’s support can meaningfully strengthen one side by signaling that the Executive Branch believes a particular interpretation of public carry, historical tradition, or sensitive-place doctrine should become national precedent.

Not to be rude, but can we not do this?

We are all adults, it’s important that we engage with content and news *as humans* and get the most genuine experience possible. These AI models are not reliable for actually interpreting information as you would.

I feel like now more than ever, some degree of media literacy is important to discussing 2A politics. There is *so* much misinformation, best not to introduce additional variables.

 

[ikeo1]

I feel like now more than ever, some degree of media literacy is important to discussing 2A politics. There is *so* much misinformation, best not to introduce additional variables.

The main reason to introduce AI is to get another perspective based on consensus. There is misinformation where people believe all kinds of false data. Leveraging AI appropriately will help people process statistical and raw data easier if they know how to use it.

The problem is people trust pundits more than raw data and when the data doesn’t support their position they question the raw data itself even though it’s being used by pundits.

AI will read it objectively but I’ve found it can also be biased so a lot of it is based on how you ask it. Leverage it for what it is to help assist and not for complete interpretation instead clarification

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Not to be rude, but can we not do this?

We are all adults, it’s important that we engage with content and news *as humans* and get the most genuine experience possible. These AI models are not reliable for actually interpreting information as you would.

I feel like now more than ever, some degree of media literacy is important to discussing 2A politics. There is *so* much misinformation, best not to introduce additional variables.

Sure! I linked the 35 page amicus brief from the DOJ there. Feel free to summarize for all of us.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

A better way to look at this is not using AI for 2A content

Why is not using AI a better way to look at it?

 

[john_marsten_1873]

[generative] AI can be rather annoying so I understand folks complaining about it. But it’s a powerful and informative tool if you know how to use it.

A few things (AI ethics, if you will) I did here in using it:

1. I explicitly stated that I used an LLM and which one (ChatGPT) - don’t try to pass it off as your own “work”

2. I didn’t ask for analysis or opinion but instead for a summarization of the amicus brief and the significance of the DOJ filing it - I don’t need an opinion from AI and they’re especially terrible at opinions because they can easily be manipulated. I just need a baseline, unbiased understanding of this issue in 3-5 mins

3. I provided here the brief itself as a source and for ChatGPT as well - either ask for the source or provide one. Then verify the LLM response from the source. If posting to a public thread, others can go to source and verify as well

 

[donmatteo]

I think the history of Hawaii is more the issue than any 2A or what the 9th says with all of this.

Hawaii is very separatist and still feels and believes that they are a sovereign nation not under the rule of the US federal government. You'd be hard pressed to find a US flag in Hawaii other than a military base. They unwillingly joined the US and are still bitter about it.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Hawaii should be a territory like Puerto Rico and Guam. I have a lot of friends there, all transplants. Even after 40 years they still don't fully fit in there.

 

[Drowned Rat]

AI will read it objectively but I’ve found it can also be biased so a lot of it is based on how you ask it. Leverage it for what it is to help assist and not for complete interpretation instead clarification

This is a bizarre assumption.

AI will not read anything “objectively” ever. It will pull information based on how it sees other journalists and forums reacting because that is how these models work. These are not thinking machines, they are consolidation machines trained to give you answers that retain your attention that is it. Period.

Accuracy is not the point of this technology as it currently exists.

They (illegally) scrape data from the internet and mimic it. So your defense here is like saying a parrot will “objectively” repeat something it heard.

I really urge you to not forfeit your ability to think and understand for some perceived convenience or this belief that a machine (whose process is effectively a black box of data theft) will consistently give you accurate information.

It’s a fun tool, but not for politics or education. Like I said before, you are introducing too many variables.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

This is a bizarre assumption.

AI will not read anything “objectively” ever. It will pull information based on how it sees other journalists and forums reacting because that is how these models work. These are not thinking machines, they are consolidation machines trained to give you answers that retain your attention that is it. Period.

Accuracy is not the point of this technology as it currently exists.

They (illegally) scrape data from the internet and mimic it. So your defense here is like saying a parrot will “objectively” repeat something it heard.

I really urge you to not forfeit your ability to think and understand for some perceived convenience or this belief that a machine (whose process is effectively a black box of data theft) will consistently give you accurate information.

It’s a fun tool, but not for politics or education. Like I said before, you are introducing too many variables.

Dude! Calm down!

AI can absolutely “think” objectively. A model can be trained to recognize bias and subjectivity and generate unbiased, objective responses.

Certainly, it depends on the model/learning, the data and the user but that’s with any tool. Put a firearm in the hands of a dummy and you’re likely to get dumb outcomes.

In this particular instance it was very useful. I was unfamiliar with this particular case. I didn’t want to watch a 10 minute video, or read a bunch of opinions here to understand the issue. Nor did I want or feel it necessary to read a 35 page legal document when I can get a summary of the actual brief in just a few mins. Furthermore, I figured others might find it useful as well.

I’m pretty sure you can mute stuff if it’s so triggering for you.

 

[RustyIron]

The main reason to introduce AI is to get another perspective based on consensus.

I come here to read what people have to say and hear their about their thoughts. Too many are too quick to post URL's to what other people have to say, and share links to videos of other peoples opinions. I like to think that we're all intelligent individuals--ok, maybe not ALL of us--but if someone has something to say, say it. But don't try to get me to join in someone else's YouTubes, Tick Tocks, and Snapple Chats. I just don't care to squander my precious time.