dead schoolchildren?

...

Charlie Kirk's most significant opinion was when he pre-approved his own assassination.

Charlie Kirk: “It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment”
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we

I found this, and it says that it only applies if the private owner fails or chooses not to post signage forbidding weapons.

"private property owners" include homeowners.

to govern whether or not your friends are bringing guns into your home, I'm not sure recourse to the law is really going to help you.

An important qualifier to the ruling.

The extreme court goes to the furthest right position on whatever is in front of them so it’s either you can’t make laws against guns or they were just paid off by the NRA. Either one equally believable

If you have investments in corporate Prisons, Medical/Hospitals, and Mortuaries, there's a lot of money to be made on struggling and desperate poor folks.
Along with the Social Darwinist and bored blood lust factor.

Modern conservatism is just an exercise in petulantly justifying comfortable selfishness.

Put up a no guns sign and trespass them. Casino's are also largely considered gun free zones by statute in most states already, so this ruling changes nothing there.

This decision doesn't prevent property owners from banning guns. It prevents the state from making that the default status. Property owners are still able to ban guns and trespass violators, same as basically every other state did before this.

The Supreme Court will never be the same once the proper rules are set. Justices like Clarence Thomas, Roberts and Alito will not be attracted to it because there will be too much scrutiny and no money in it.

Places such as schools and daycare centers are prohibited areas by statute.

The default rule in Hawaii was that bringing a gun onto private property that is open to the public was prohibited without the owner’s express consent. While I don’t agree with the Court’s decision it is not as broad as some of the posts assume. First, it doesn’t apply to private property that is not generally open to the public — such as a private residence. Second, it reverses the default rule back to the one prevalent in most jurisdictions—one that puts the responsibility for barring guns from a property on the property owner. In other words, silence is presumed to be consent rather than the other way around.

So casinos, hospitals, schools etc can continue to bar people from bringing weapons onto their property.