![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/gun-girl-45-212x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Apparently Hawaii’s state government is under the impression that the US Constitution is a set of suggestions, and that they and their state can just sort of blow it off whenever they want to, and “The Spirit of Aloha” is the governing law of their little island paradise.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has handed down a decision that claims there is no right to carry a firearm for self-defense in the state, while also chastising the U.S. Supreme Court and making the assertion that Hawaii is not required to follow its rulings on the Second Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Christopher Wilson was arrested for carrying a gun in 2017, in violation of a state law which forbids personal carry outside the home. First convicted, then his conviction was reversed on appeal after the USSC decision on Bruen (New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen<\/em> ) which found for the right to carry outside the home. Then the case was appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The decision by the Supreme Court of Hawaii has garnered national attention for its brazen refusal to follow the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling, as well as its unique reasoning.<\/p>\n
While Article 1, Section 17 of the Hawaiian Constitution is nearly identical to the words of the Second Amendment, the state supreme court found that there is actually no right to carry a firearm in the Hawaiian Constitution and argued that the U.S.\u2019s highest court also got it wrong when reviewing the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court,\u201d read the unanimous ruling, which was written by Justice Todd Eddins.<\/p>\n
The opinion claimed that when the state\u2019s supreme court sees things differently than the Supreme Court, \u201cthis court frequently walks another way. Long ago, the Hawai?i Supreme Court announced that an \u2018opinion of the United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawai?i Constitution.<\/p>\n
The court reasoned, \u201cAs the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era\u2019s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution. \u2018The thing about the old days, they the old days.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Think that translates to “We disagree…eff off.” Apparently the irony of “the Constitution is too old so we follow an ancestral spirit” escapes them.<\/p>\n
The judges stated that, until the last few decades, there was no understanding that the Second Amendment provided individuals the right to bear arms. They also argued that justices had cherrypicked laws and historical tradition, while ignoring anything that would debunk their reasonings in order to come to its 2022 decision in Bruen<\/em>, its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v.<\/em> Heller<\/em>, and its 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>, all of which affirm the individual\u2019s right to self-defense under the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The Hawaiian Supreme Court also took issue with the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen<\/em>, which requires judges to look to the historical tradition of firearms restrictions when deciding Second Amendment cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cTime-traveling to 1791 or 1868 to collar how a state regulates lethal weapons \u2014 per the Constitution\u2019s democratic design \u2014 is a dangerous way to look at the federal constitution. The Constitution is not a \u2018suicide pact,\u2019\u201d the judges wrote. \u201cWe believe it is a misplaced view to think that today\u2019s public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago. Smoothbore, muzzle-loaded, and powder-and-ramrod muskets were not exactly useful to colonial era mass murderers.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One can only assume they wrote this opinion with quill pens on parchment before dispatching a copy to the States on a schooner?<\/p>\n
Their opinion is all over the map – strict reading of the 2nd Amendment supposedly does not guarantee an individual right… yet they say the 14th, which never mentions abortion, guarantees that ‘right’ for any who wish one.<\/p>\n
The Hawaiian Supreme Court was very insistent that words have meaning and that the exact wording of an amendment matters. That was the main crux of their argument in this case: The Second Amendment doesn\u2019t grant a right to everyday citizens because it doesn\u2019t use the words \u201cindividual\u201d or \u201cself-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the 14th Amendment, which was used to insist on the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade<\/em>, doesn\u2019t use the words \u201cabortion\u201d or \u201cprivacy\u201d nor does it state anything about the \u201cright\u201d to either. It actually says that no state shall deprive<\/em> any person of the right to life, something an abortion clearly does by killing a child.\u00a0 Standing for Freedom<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I suspect the Supreme Court in Washington is following this with interest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"