Dan Epps

I think we should be careful in how we describe it because at least in this case, everybody seems to agree that there is a rule that on private property, a property owner can deny consent for the carrying of firearms.

Right.

And just at the outset, I mean, that is the way the case is being framed and litigated.

Do you think that is a firmly settled principle such that, you know, Texas or Florida could not overrule it?

Just say a rule that you always get to carry your firearms, whatever the private property owner wants or says.

Yeah, I think in the briefs they talk about, they mention a Florida law where it says you can at least store your handgun in your vehicle at your, you know, at your place of employment.

But I wonder, I mean, would it violate some kind of, you know,

Do you have such stickers on your laptop?

You don't have your laptop here, so I can't check.

The Chief Justice has his own pins?

Can I see that?

How do I get one of those?

I don't know.

Okay.

Chief Justice trivia?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, and I think these laws have bite on the assumption that most property owners are not going to do something to change the default either way.

In a world where every property owner was going to put up a sign one way or the other, expressing their preference as to whether...

someone bearing arms could enter the property, I think the default rule wouldn't matter, right?