Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

1
Hawaii v. Wilson
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-conte ... 000561.pdf
No doubt. Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition excludes an
individual right to possess weapons. Hawaiʻi prohibited the
public carry of lethal weapons – with no exceptions for licensed
weapons – from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms
has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaiʻi has never
recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a
Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State.
Also, there's no need to adhere to the constitution anyway.
As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary
society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture,
realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.
But if Hawaii takes licensure into consideration, the court claims its statues are not in violation of 2A.
We also hold that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Bruen, Thomas wrote:“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

4
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:27 pm
featureless wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:14 pm It is not Hawaii's historical tradition that is the bar. It is the nation's historical tradition.
That is why Bruen states "Nation."

A Michel & Associates attorney has a thread on this ruling:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1755 ... 1707413172
Exactly. McDonald stuck a fork in Hawaii's argument over a decade ago.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

7
featureless wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 1:14 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:49 pm Moros points out the state argued Wilson should have applied for a permit, but at the time of the offense, no permits were being issued.
Perhaps he should have applied for a permit, but that hardly changes the incorrect opinion.
And the ninth will rubber stamp this decision.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

8
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:57 am Hawaii v. Wilson
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-conte ... 000561.pdf
No doubt. Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition excludes an
individual right to possess weapons. Hawaiʻi prohibited the
public carry of lethal weapons – with no exceptions for licensed
weapons – from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms
has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaiʻi has never
recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a
Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State.
Also, there's no need to adhere to the constitution anyway.
As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary
society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture,
realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.
But if Hawaii takes licensure into consideration, the court claims its statues are not in violation of 2A.
We also hold that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Bruen, Thomas wrote:“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’
Lessee here....

1.) The Kingdom of Hawaii prevented the carry of deadly weapons. Well, I would imagine so, as monarchies traditionally have been hereditary dictatorships which, of course, don't ever want their subjects to be able to revolt. Clearly *someone* had deadly weapons, and I would imagine it was the monarch's troops.

2.) As a State, remember that the Hawaiian population was minority-White. We need only look to apartheid-era South Africa and other European-style colonialism for that one. Were carry of firearms to be allowed by those non-White Hawaiians, they might've been able to throw off the colonialists! Can't have that, now!

How sad that Daniel Inouye, a Medal of Honor WWII warrior for this country and later Senator for Hawaii, was for maintaining that gun control that kept people like himself, down.

I really hope the Supreme Court smacks this down, very, very hard.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

9
CowboyT wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:11 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:57 am Hawaii v. Wilson
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-conte ... 000561.pdf
No doubt. Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition excludes an
individual right to possess weapons. Hawaiʻi prohibited the
public carry of lethal weapons – with no exceptions for licensed
weapons – from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms
has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaiʻi has never
recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a
Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State.
Also, there's no need to adhere to the constitution anyway.
As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary
society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture,
realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.
But if Hawaii takes licensure into consideration, the court claims its statues are not in violation of 2A.
We also hold that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Bruen, Thomas wrote:“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’
Lessee here....

1.) The Kingdom of Hawaii prevented the carry of deadly weapons. Well, I would imagine so, as monarchies traditionally have been hereditary dictatorships which, of course, don't ever want their subjects to be able to revolt. Clearly *someone* had deadly weapons, and I would imagine it was the monarch's troops.

2.) As a State, remember that the Hawaiian population was minority-White. We need only look to apartheid-era South Africa and other European-style colonialism for that one. Were carry of firearms to be allowed by those non-White Hawaiians, they might've been able to throw off the colonialists! Can't have that, now!

How sad that Daniel Inouye, a Medal of Honor WWII warrior for this country and later Senator for Hawaii, was for maintaining that gun control that kept people like himself, down.

I really hope the Supreme Court smacks this down, very, very hard.
If it ever gets to the Supreme Court. If it does the ninth will help the state ignore it just like the other Supreme Court decisions that the dems in the area want to ignore.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

10
There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17. So there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense.
Article 1, Section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
https://lrb.hawaii.gov/constitution/#articlei

Wilson could take this directly to SCOTUS since it's an opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court. SCOTUS would then have to decide if it's a case with enough general interest to grant cert and hear oral arguments. Or they could grant cert, vacate this decision and remand the case back to Hawaii telling them to read the Bruen opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

11
highdesert wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:22 pm Or they could grant cert, vacate this decision and remand the case back to Hawaii telling them to read the Bruen opinion.
The Hawaii SC already appears to have read Bruen, decided it means what they need it to mean whilst simultaneously claiming it should not be followed, and ruled accordingly. I would guess they would do it again.

An important question is how many years this has bought the state to maintain the status quo.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

12
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:54 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:22 pm Or they could grant cert, vacate this decision and remand the case back to Hawaii telling them to read the Bruen opinion.
The Hawaii SC already appears to have read Bruen, decided it means what they need it to mean whilst simultaneously claiming it should not be followed, and ruled accordingly. I would guess they would do it again.

An important question is how many years this has bought the state to maintain the status quo.
I think some of us will be dead and buried if this is ever ruled in favor of gun owners.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

13
Bruen snubs federalism principles.
From Wilson v Hawaii

The wire services AP News and Reuters thought it was entertaining that the Hawaii Supreme Court gave SCOTUS the finger and mentioned the TV show "The Wire" in their opinion.

https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-gun-r ... e74a5c0e15

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 024-02-08/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

16
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:09 am The problem with Bruen, like Dobbs, is that Thomas and Alito both are shitty jurists, writing decisions on shaky and even illusionary grounds. IOW, they write BAD LAW to serve their political biases and interests.
But they had a majority of justices agree with the case. Roe v Wade Justice Blackmun wrote it and was joined by a majority. Bad justices can write a good decision representing the majority view of the court and justices can write flawed decisions like Roe. Unfortunately our justice system is based on politics so the political perspective of justices does flavor our opinion of them. For now lower courts should adhere to the rulings in Bruen and Dobbs just like courts respected a flawed Roe until it was overturned. In this instance my preference is to say I like Thomas’ and Alito’s interpretation of the constitution more than the dissenting opinion. The majority interpretation protects my right to self defense.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

17
sikacz wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:05 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:09 am The problem with Bruen, like Dobbs, is that Thomas and Alito both are shitty jurists, writing decisions on shaky and even illusionary grounds. IOW, they write BAD LAW to serve their political biases and interests.
But they had a majority of justices agree with the case. Roe v Wade Justice Blackmun wrote it and was joined by a majority. Bad justices can write a good decision representing the majority view of the court and justices can write flawed decisions like Roe. Unfortunately our justice system is based on politics so the political perspective of justices does flavor our opinion of them. For now lower courts should adhere to the rulings in Bruen and Dobbs just like courts respected a flawed Roe until it was overturned. In this instance my preference is to say I like Thomas’ and Alito’s interpretation of the constitution more than the dissenting opinion. The majority interpretation protects my right to self defense.
Problem: what you're saying isn't part of the Democrat Party religion. That's why people object to it. And that's the problem: "my tribe, right or wrong!", goes the "thinking". Charlottesville-style racists or anyone else intending to do harm comes up to me or my wife, I want to be able to defend us, and that means a gun.

We are Liberals, folks, not necessarily Democrats. It's important that we remember that.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

19
CowboyT wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:19 am
sikacz wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:05 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:09 am The problem with Bruen, like Dobbs, is that Thomas and Alito both are shitty jurists, writing decisions on shaky and even illusionary grounds. IOW, they write BAD LAW to serve their political biases and interests.
But they had a majority of justices agree with the case. Roe v Wade Justice Blackmun wrote it and was joined by a majority. Bad justices can write a good decision representing the majority view of the court and justices can write flawed decisions like Roe. Unfortunately our justice system is based on politics so the political perspective of justices does flavor our opinion of them. For now lower courts should adhere to the rulings in Bruen and Dobbs just like courts respected a flawed Roe until it was overturned. In this instance my preference is to say I like Thomas’ and Alito’s interpretation of the constitution more than the dissenting opinion. The majority interpretation protects my right to self defense.
Problem: what you're saying isn't part of the Democrat Party religion. That's why people object to it. And that's the problem: "my tribe, right or wrong!", goes the "thinking". Charlottesville-style racists or anyone else intending to do harm comes up to me or my wife, I want to be able to defend us, and that means a gun.

We are Liberals, folks, not necessarily Democrats. It's important that we remember that.
I agree. Tribalism and blind party loyalty is dangerous to justice just as it is to democracy.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

20
Bodily autonomy extends to the right to defend oneself from attack. All people, all women have a right to bodily autonomy not just women capable of being impregnated. Being able to fend off an attacker or attackers is a civil right and the choice of means shouldn’t be limited or traded off to secure a right of protection for only part of a group. All civil rights should be respected and rights are not trading chips to gain political power.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

21
CDFingers wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:55 am Apparently "State's Rights" are cool when they take away a woman's bodily autonomy, but not cool if they prevent a Republican insurrectionist from getting kicked off the ballot.

CDFingers
Show me a conviction and I'll eagerly support Colorado in knocking a certain candidate off the ballot. Until then, we (even the icky ones) are still entitled to a trial. I would love nothing more than for trump to be off all ballots, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the right to trial over it. Not by a long shot.

As to a right to carry, that is clearly indicated in the 2A and supported by Heller and Bruen. As a civil right, it is not a state's right issue (McDonald, prior to the trump stuffing, tells us that).

Abortion should be fundamental. I'm still waiting for the Dems to legislate its legality at the federal level, even for just the first trimester which seems supported by a majority of the country. Recall, a woman's right to own and carry a firearm is also secures bodily autonomy through self defense. Dems are quite eager to get rid of that, especially in Hawaii. It is far too easy for us larger males to decide they don't need such defense against us, it would seem. Does the right to abortion override the right to bodily security on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one wonders...

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

22
sikacz wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 am Bodily autonomy extends to the right to defend oneself from attack. All people, all women have a right to bodily autonomy not just women capable of being impregnated. Being able to fend off an attacker or attackers is a civil right and the choice of means shouldn’t be limited or traded off to secure a right of protection for only part of a group. All civil rights should be respected and rights are not trading chips to gain political power.
Agree, Hawaii has an even stronger Nanny government than California. We should all be fearful when governments, even in a democracy tell us that they know what is best. Those legislators aren't objective evaluators, some are bought and paid for and the rest are guided by special interests and campaign donations.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

23
One cannot be a little pregnant, yet we can have a few guns with no problems.

I am really calling out the inconsistencies of this Court. They should never have overturned Roe. Caused much trouble. They are so cowardly that they never define "to infringe." They love the chaos I guess.

on edit

We have to understand that it's the Fourth Amendment that is violated when a woman's bodily autonomy is usurped in red states. How can we prevent a woman from getting a procedure unless we know she's getting it. See? It is true that the .gov knows about every gun we've bough legally, so there's a right to privacy thing there too. The two things are not equal, and the Court is being ideologically inconsistent, which shows their corporate and Dominionist ownership.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

24
CDFingers wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:08 am One cannot be a little pregnant, yet we can have a few guns with no problems.

I am really calling out the inconsistencies of this Court. They should never have overturned Roe. Caused much trouble. They are so cowardly that they never define "to infringe." They love the chaos I guess.

CDFingers
Nor can one be just a little bit raped and having a revolver at home doesn't help when one is in the proverbial dark alley.

I totally understand your point about the Court and agree, Roe should have been left alone. It should also have been codified (per Ginsburg, no less) but there are wedge issues to maintain, so it wasn't and won't be.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court rules there is no right to carry per its text/history/tradition

25
CDFingers wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:08 am One cannot be a little pregnant, yet we can have a few guns with no problems.

I am really calling out the inconsistencies of this Court. They should never have overturned Roe. Caused much trouble. They are so cowardly that they never define "to infringe." They love the chaos I guess.

CDFingers
I agree that Roe being overturned left a subset of women unprotected, but using that as an excuse to justify making a larger number of women unprotected really defies all logic. I fully understand your and your wife’s commitment to safe abortion and women’s bodily autonomy, but I simply don’t agree that allowing more women and men to lose protection and body autonomy is a just course. It’s not. You keep bringing this up as if the loss of abortion should be used to punish gun owners and give them the same medicine. That’s pretty cruel considering how communities that fear for their lives daily need the protection that the second guarantees. I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but so are you. You fail to address how making even more people vulnerable, more women than Roe ever protected, somehow is an acceptable option. The only acceptable option is to define in law bodily autonomy and not use the threat of losing more rights to punish others. Even liberal justices lamented the weak underpinning of Roe, there was decades of time to enshrine a law to protect a person’s bodily autonomy. That wasn’t taken. I simply don’t get or accept your argument.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests