Wolford v. Lopez · ¶159
The analogues cited by Hawaii clearly establish that legislatures historically required affrmative consent for carrying a frearm onto private property—the same “how” as § 134– 9.5. And they did so to protect property owners' interests in response to concerns related to unauthorized armed entry—the same “why” as § 134–9.5.Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.