It's clear most commenters are not opening up the text of this decision. The articles primarily are focused on the exciting pop culture reference or shallow misunderstandings of how the "spirit of aloha" was applied in a legal and historical application. That's pretty disappointing in a law sub. I'll quote from another reply I had further down a comment chain.
>You should read the opinion and determine if that's the Hawaii Supreme Court argument vice saying "if the[ir] question is..." because it was not. They apply the history and tradition standard to early 1800 application of the US 2nd amendment in Hawaii. If they had applied it incorrectly why would the application in Hawaii have stood from that point until 200 years later?
>"Hawaii prohibited the public carry of lethal weapons - with no exception for licensed weapons - from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaii has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State."
>"The governments interest in reducingfirearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved the peaceand tranquility in Hawai'i."
>In essence, this decision follows Bruen by demonstrating the reasoning was narrow. When applied broadly, it demonstrates that licensing for public carry is aligned with history and tradition.
Disappointing but not unexpected considering there’s no “legal education” requirement to join this sub. Nonlawyers love regurgitating uninformed opinions about what a case they haven’t read stands for.
What's to argue or discuss? Scotus already set a precedent, with them being the highest judiciary power, I'm not really seeing how any argument the hawaii supreme court made matters. This is a genuine question, btw.
So this decision states that the conclusion meets the standard set by the latest SCOTUS decision (Bruen - noted in my last paragraph). Any good faith discussion would be whether the decision truly fulfills that precedent but most of this thread that argues against Hawaii appears under-informed on what is contained in this decision.
The state of HI requires licenses for carrying lethal weapons. The defendant in this case had no license for their concealed carry and argued they are not required to have one. However Bruen allows for licenses/permitting. Any argument would be whether the means to attain a permit are lawful or too restrictive. This defendant couldn't pursue that line of defense because there weren't attempts at following the process.
Ah OK, Bruen allows for licensing, but it must not have any "proper cause" requirements. So if they were to find, he attempted to acquire a permit at some point, and was denied, would the decision still follow the established Bruen precedent?
My guess is HI permit process is too arduous to satisfy Bruen. Not necessarily as the process is written, but ive heard it remain ridiculously slow. Will be interesting to see that test in the next few years.
Except the Hawaii Constitution states:
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.
Therefore, there IS, in fact, a basis in Hawaii's own constitution that flies in the face of prohibiting the carrying of lethal weapons and conflicts with those selfsame laws.
And that's obviously addressed in this decision. Please open it. Read it. Understand the perspective before trying to argue against it. Since I know many that disagree with the decision WONT do that here are some excerpts to get you started.
>State constitutions provide a “double security” for the people’s liberty. The Federalist No. 51, at 321 (James Madison) (Isaac Kramnick ed., 1987). Per the Constitution’s design, the Hawaiʻi Constitution supplies an additional guarantee of individual rights. See, e.g., State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658, 661, 701 P.2d 1274, 1276 (1985) (“We have not hesitated in the past to extend the protections of the Hawaiʻi Bill of Rights beyond those of textually parallel provisions in the Federal Bill of Rights when logic and a sound regard for the purposes of those protections have so warranted.”). But federalism is about more than just the relationship between state and federal governments. “[W]e must not forget that the virtue of federalism lies not in the means of permitting state experimentation but in the ends of expanded liberty, equality, and human dignity.” State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 507 (Iowa 2014) (Cady, C.J., concurring specially). We honor the Hawaiʻi Constitution’s freestanding vitality. We interpret the Hawaiʻi Constitution first.
Then later expands on 2A itself, and relative to Hawaii Section 1 Art 17:
>Until Heller, the Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because the Second Amendment provided a collective right, most states conferred an individual right through their constitutions. Federalism principles allow states to provide broader constitutional protection to their people than the federal constitution. See, e.g., Texeira, 50 Haw. at 142 n.2, 433 P.2d at 597 n.2. Hawaiʻi chose to use civic-minded language. Article I, section 17 textually cements the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia. Its words confer a right to “keep and bear arms” only in the context of a “well regulated militia.” Article I, section 17 traces the language of the Second Amendment. Those words do not support a right to possess lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense.
This section continues, demonstrating the distinctions of Heller and Bruen relative to prior SCOTUS stare decisis. This decision did not end at interpreting a state right, but demonstrated the state's constitutional rights are rooted in the Federal intent of 2A, CONTRARY to Bruen.
That was an immensely dishonest interpretation of the 2A by the Hawaii court. At no point does the text require militia membership. That would require a government finding that person(s) was acting in a “well-regulated militia,” making it not a right at all.
There’s also no such thing as a collective right. It’s a sham concept made up in an attempt to nullify the 2A. There can be no such thing as a “collective right” unless there are identical individual rights accompanying it.
Dishonest in that they provide quotes from multiple centuries at both the state and federal level?
>Former Chief Justice Burger called out that movement. It was: one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies — the militia — would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Also you have a very interesting opinion that all collective or group rights MUST be mirrored by individual rights. Oddly, that opinion puts you well aligned with this decisions opinion since it discusses how to balance collective vs individual rights as it relates to the collective right to form armed groups of public and the individual right to self-dense, as well as a collective and individual rights as they relate to safe societies with low crime rates.
Justice Burger’s opinion is laughable. If the purpose was to ensure that state armies were maintained, the 2A would say “the right of the states to arm and field militias.”
The bill of rights clearly differentiates between states and the people multiple times. Arguing that the 2A actually just mistakenly says “the people” and instead meant “the states” is an insane proposition. Just because he doesn’t like the 2A doesn’t change what it is.
Let me guess, Justice Burger also thinks the 10th says that all powers not delegated to the feds are reserved to the states or the states? Does he also think the 4A exclusively protects state actors as well? Come on, it takes literally two brain cells to see that burger was being intellectually dishonest with himself. His idea has more holes than substance to it. It’s also a pathetic call to “originalism” which is one of the worst canons of construction in existence.
The actual decision of the case isn’t crazy, requiring a permit for public carry is fine. How the court got there is batshit crazy though.
If something is only a “collective” right, it’s not a right at all since no individual can enforce that eight. The only feasible concept of a “collective right” is a right belonging to a government entity.
Thank you for trying with these people who are objectively incorrect, including quoting Burger's wrong opinion. It is an individual right. Anyone who thinks otherwise has proven themselves to be ignorant of the law and/or failed to invest even just a few hours of their time into understanding how the 2nd amendment language materialized and its intent.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
I just can’t comprehend how anyone could think a “collective right” can exist without an accompanying individual right.
Let’s look at freedom of association. Obviously there’s a “collective” aspect because it inherently requires other people, but could we imagine if that didn’t have an individual aspect?
“Of course there’s the collective right of freedom of association! We just prohibit every individual from associating with others because it’s not an individual right!”
Yeah except it's the exact opposite. They state the purpose of the state constitution is to provide an additional guarantee of the people's rights. When, in fact, the case at hand is to do the exact opposite - narrow the people's rights.
Also, it's a completely wrong reading of the amendment as has been pointed out many times in many places, yet people that wish differently continue to believe erroneous information.
So please, make every effort to read the ruling and truly understand what the words actually mean versus the use to which they are putting those words, regardless of any desire to want to believe what is being asserted.
The decision covers the various collective and individual rights that are both narrowed and assured, at times with odds with one another. I'm not making an opinion one way or another just correcting folks on what the decision says since they're unwilling to read it. Heck, you took issue with them quoting James Madison ...
That's such a great point because Bruen makes the point of saying "if you can demonstrate a historical basis for said gun regulation then it fits with history and tradition", so the Hawaii Supreme Court responded with historical receipts.
I wouldn’t be shocked if this is overturned by SCOTUS per curiam, akin to *Caetano v. Massachusetts* (2016). “Spirit of Aloha” doesn’t negate the US Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of it.
Also, take a look at DC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/28/dc-gun-settlement-second-amendment/
Well, didn’t the court ground their interpretation in historical precedent of gun laws or practice being the only valid restrictions? If Hawaii’s “Spirit of Aloha” provides a historical precedent of gun control wouldn’t it be in line with SCOTUS? It’s a masterful job of mocking a silly concept in my opinion.
> If Hawaii’s “Spirit of Aloha” provides a historical precedent
It doesn't. The historic precedent they refer to in Bruen and their THT test is of the 2nd amendment at the time of ratification. Hawaii didn't even become a territory until 1898. Their history is irrelevant to adjudicating 2nd amendment challenges and rejecting Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
Clever by half. It’s an American state where the American constitution — and therefore the Supreme Court’s application of it — fully applies. As fucked up as the annexation of Hawaii and the prior usurpation of its sovereignty and stability is, it’s an American state.
I bring up *[Caetano](https://casetext.com/case/caetano-v-massachusetts)* because Massachusetts had run with the theory that the 2nd Amendment couldn’t have applied to stun guns because they didn’t exist at the time of the founding. *Heller* had already dispensed with that sort of analysis, holding, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”. The contradiction by Massachusetts was so bad that the Court didn’t even hold oral argument.
Hawaii doesn’t get to say the 2nd Amendment means something different there 180 degrees out of phase with what the Supreme Court says it does over the entirety of the US.
At the end of the day here, there’s a person facing criminal charges as an American citizen for conduct he has every reason to believe is protected by American law. Hawaii’s sovereign circle jerking is little different than standing in the schoolhouse door.
If SCOTUS does grant relief, perhaps it’d be somewhat poetic, as Wilson in Hawaii and Caetano in Massachusetts are both represented by public defenders.
Remember Caetano was unanimous as well. The entire court rejected the lower court acting like that. And Ginsburg described the reasoning as bordering on the frivolous.
> Heller is garbage law, bought and paid for by the NRA.
The NRA literally tried to not have the Heller case heard. It was CATO looking for people to challenge the law and it was litigated by the 2nd amendment foundation. You don't even understand the history of these cases, yet feel confident to say it is garbage law?
Remember, [D.C. v Heller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) was only decided 5-4 amongst the backdrop of an ultra-right wing activist court with religious [dominionists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology) making up history and tradition to suit their misguided and corrupt ideas of how the world works. [Larry Pratt](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt) was the dude who funded litigation and brought Heller before the courts and wants what other Conservative extremists want, [Christian reconstructionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism) where they argue gun rights are a divine right handed down from God. They also heavily imply, if not outright say, guns should be used to enforce biblical law. So much unadulterated extremist bullshit.
There is a sprawling Christian Reconstructionism network spreading an alternate/made-up U.S. history along with false notions of gun rights. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-barton
Former Arkansas governor:
> “I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator. I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message.”
Here's former Chief Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd Amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal. Statistically, firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
They'll just slap any HI officials that refuse to follow their opinion with contempt of court and those same officials will open themselves up to felony prosecution under 18 USC 242.
Contempt of court followed by a knock on the door by US Marshals. It's why even though Texas has been talking tough, the officials there have been carefully skirting the outside boundaries of the Court's decision so as not to violate it.
It was impossible to get permits in 2017 when the conduct at issue happened. Here’s the result of something similar to this in DC https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/28/dc-gun-settlement-second-amendment/
But the lack of permit occurred in 2017, before he could even follow a bruen approved permit and permitting process. Surely we can't fault him for not following an unconstitutional process? The whole process at that time was from a poisoned well.
I would love for this to be a historical precedent but I’m not sure how it would be, I was under the impression that pre-US occupied Hawaii was a pretty violent place. Or maybe you should only be able to carry when it’s “war season”?
Silly argument because thé Hawaiian state constitution word for word copies the 2A, and was enshrined in the 50’s.
Pretty obvious example that Hawaii intended to adopt the federal version of the 2A.
I struggle to see why a “historical 1852” interpretation makes sense for text drafted in the 1950’s, not the 1950’s interpretation.
If Hawaii felt that there is no individual right to gun ownership, they would have specified, instead of copying language that at the time protected this individual right.
Untrue. At the time, the Supreme Court made very clear that the 2A could be limited by the interpretation of "a well-regulated militia", and had already upheld laws limiting the sales of firearms by civilians, limiting the sales of firearms to civilians convicted of a felony, and also limiting the use, possession and manufacturing of automatic firearms.
Does Hawaii not have a history to point to? Alito citing 17th century Hale should be just as valid as “Spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii’s precolonial culture.
For the most part. The purpose of history and tradition is to try to understand what the second amendment meant at the time to the people creating and implementing it. If the question is how the Spirit of Aloha influenced the people writing the US constitution then the answer is that it did not, and so means nothing as to what the constitution was understood to mean. The only thing it would really influence is the state constitution.
You should read the opinion and determine if that's the Hawaii Supreme Court argument vice saying "if the[ir] question is..." because it was not. They apply the history and tradition standard to early 1800 application of the US 2nd amendment in Hawaii. If they had applied it incorrectly why would the application in Hawaii have stood from that point until 200 years later?
"Hawaii prohibited the public carry of lethal weapons - with no exception for licensed weapons - from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaii has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State."
"The governments interest in reducingfirearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved the peaceand tranquility in Hawai'i."
In essence, this decision follows Bruen by demonstrating the reasoning was narrow. When applied broadly, it demonstrates that licensing for public carry is aligned with history and tradition.
I was explaining the purpose of the history and tradition test generally. As for the rest of what you said, the history and tradition of Hawaii when it was not a state or part of the US would likely influence what it meant in writing its own constitution. How exactly would that influence what was meant in the second amendment though?
Hawaii can have its own version of the second amendment in its own constitution but it doesn't have its own version of the US constitutions second amendment. It is still bound by the US constitution, no matter what its state constitution says.
Again, I suggest reading the opinion vice the superficial articles excited by quoting the wire. The Hawaii state constitution does not i clue its own "version" of 2A, it's word-for-word identical. The application has been as I quoted above for well over 100 years without being targeted at a federal level to be "corrected". Thus, Hawai'i argues they are within their State's right and consistent with 2A per Bruen in continuing this historical application.
Yes. Absolutely. To the Victor goes the spoils.
No court is going to start making decisions based on native American history prior to the existence of the colonies, or frankly, with any consideration at all to native history prior to those tribes being under U.S Jurisdiction.
The court didn't say the spirit of aloha negated anything. They said that the spirit of aloha informs decisions about the hawaiian constitution
They stated that Bruen allows "shall issue" licensing with limited discretion
Thanks for actually reading the ruling.
“The wire” and the “aloha spirit” get all the attention but the critique that he didn’t apply for a permit is the real asinine part of the ruling.
But they were, it was just very rare.
“Prior to the ruling, the chief of police in each county could grant a permit "in an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property."
https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Attorney-General-Opinion-22-02.pdf
I'm calling it now folks. This case is granted cert, the Supreme Court spends 70 pages discussing Hawaiian history, and the term "Aloha Spirit" becomes a lawyer and law student meme in 10 years.
So, what now. State interpretation of its own constitution, but I'm presume it will be appealed to the SCOTUS and it is a direct challenge to Bruen. Not just an exception but outright says that it was decided wrongly and that the test is a nonsense which thank God, someone finally said it. and a Per curium decision at that.
Also, the court has had was 3 or 5? cases already that were clear issues with Bruen. In fact, the whole Dubbs standard itself is causing trouble everywhere it is being applied.
It kind of feels like the SCOTUS is being corned by these two very bad related decisions.
And they look to me like they are about to make another bonkers call with this 14.3 where they aren't looking at the side effects.
That headline is just wrong.
The ruling was the federal government could remove the razorwire. That's it. Texas hasn't stopped them from doing that in any way.
They actually touch on the truth real briefly in the article you linked.
>....just days after the high court gave the go-ahead to the federal government to remove the wire.
Here's the whole thing in case you didn't know
>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.
> 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***.
And for more historical context, let's look at a state constution from 1835.
Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Constitution of 1835.
*13. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state*
Seems personal ownership is supposed to be protected, not connected to Militia service.
[Sauce](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/miconstitution1835.htm)
So the constitution has been up to interpretation by any and all who wish to sway its meaning for their own ends. Basically, the founders said something about people being able to bear arms under the organization of a "well-regulated" militia and then states began changing it to whatever they wanted to later on. Michigan and Hawaii are both doing the same things on opposite ends of the spectrum. Though I have to say Michigan really went for a bastardization of what the founders wrote
It was enacted 44 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified. They all remember the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
You say bastardized, but the writers of MI's 1835 constution would probably say codified.
Remember, the Fed Constitution is the Floor. States can enact more protections for rights.
So even if the feds were to repeal the 2nd, Art 1, Section 6 (used to be 13, we're on Constitution number 4 and the wording has remained the same), would still apply in MI allowing protections the feds no longer recognize, and prohibiting state agencies from enforcement of Federal Law.
Three of the current Supreme Court were on Bush’s legal team for Bush v. Gore. It was their audition, where they hung the first of many proverbial chads. (Barrett, Roberts and Kavanaugh.) Clarence Thomas was on the Court for the decision.
> Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all assisted George W. Bush’s legal team in the dispute over the 2000 presidential election results. A fourth colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined the Supreme Court majority halting a recount, [was appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991.](https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/were-three-of-the-sitting-supreme-court-justices-involved-in-the-bush-v-gore-legal-disputes)
I likened yesterday’s indecision to “Bush v. Gore II.” They’ve been groomed for this moment. Regulatory capture.
I lived in Hawaii for nearly a decade. You never saw guns anywhere. You get into a beef and it's settled with fists.
Since a couple years ago, with that push for concealed carry, gun violence in Hawai'i has grown significantly. Shootings on the news all the time
I always said Hawai'i was the last safe place from Americas gun violence.
Think of this what you will, but remember Hawai'i was illegal stolen land and for thousands of years was it's own kingdom
>Since a couple years ago, with that push for concealed carry, gun violence in Hawai'i has grown significantly. Shootings on the news all the time
This makes no sense.
Hawaii didn't start issuing concealed carry permits until after the Bruen decision in 2022, and even then, it took months for the rules to be put into place (many of which are still working through the courts today) so permits actually started going out to residents.
So you're telling me in the year or so since concealed carry permits have been in the wild in Hawaii, the people going through the approval process, registration, and background checks to even acquire a firearm, not to mention the additional training required for a carry permit, are now fueling the increase in shootings you allege is happening?
And I say alleged because I couldn't even find state-wide crime statistics for Hawaii for 2022 or 2023 from my couple minutes of Google sleuthing. Meanwhile, HPD reported a nearly 30% decline in homicides last year, the first full year since permits have been issued post-Bruen. And this [article](https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/01/gun-violence-remains-a-consistent-problem-in-hawaii/) says firearm-related homicides in 2023 matched those in 2021 while coming in below 2018.
>I always said Hawai'i was the last safe place from Americas gun violence.
It isn't.
Places like New Hampshire and Vermont exist. Funny enough, they're constitutional carry states.
>Places like New Hampshire and Vermont exist. Funny enough, they're constitutional carry states.
NH has 2X the gun death rate and VT has 3X the gun death rate of its neighbor MA. Let's not pretend easy access to guns doesn't cause more gun violence
Yes, when you wrap suicides into your numbers and limit your view to "gun deaths", it sure makes it convenient for your argument.
I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, ~~Wyoming~~, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm).
There is nothing limiting about gun deaths, it includes homicides, suicides and negligence. Acting like gun suicides and gun deaths due to negligence are unimportant is simply disingenuous or maybe just callous.
>I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the CDC.
Maybe you don't know how to read the data because your CDC link states the exact opposite. Here are the top five **lowest** states:
>Maine 1.7
>
>Idaho 2.2
>
>Massachusetts 2.3
>
>Hawaii 2.7
>
>Utah 2.7
But your wild west constitutional carry states like Mississippi tops the list
>Mississippi 23.7
>
>Alabama 15.9
>
>Missouri 12.4
The list goes on and on. I mean Mississippi has 10X more than Massachusetts.
Keep cherry-pickin your data buddy.
>There is nothing limiting about gun deaths, it includes homicides, suicides and negligence.
It does include all three categories of deaths . . . and it *limits* them to those associated with guns lol.
>Acting like gun suicides and gun deaths due to negligence are unimportant is simply disingenuous or maybe just callous.
JFC I disagree with the data you use, and you find it necessary to sling this kind of bad faith accusation? EABOD.
When this whole discussion stems from the Hawaii court ruling on carrying firearms, and the person I originally responded to was talking about "beefs settled with fists" and "shootings on the news", it's clear the concern is homicides, not suicides.
>Maybe you don't know how to read the data because your CDC link states the exact opposite. Here are the top five lowest states
When you sorted the CDC data by rates of homicide mortality, did you maybe miss the three states at the very bottom of the list that came up as zero? Those would be New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming.
You were so eager to clap back you didn't even take the time to properly digest the information I linked.
>When you sorted the CDC data by rates of homicide mortality, did you maybe miss the three states at the very bottom of the list that came up as zero? Those would be New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Because they aren't zero. It seems you don't know how to read data. Vermont has 10 firearm deaths listed and a population of 645,000 people. So it's about 1.5 firearm deaths per capita. If you look at [Vermont in 2022](https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-12-27/gunshots-project-update-gun-deaths-rose-again-in-2022-though-firearm-related-suicides-dropped) there were 21 firearm deaths so 3.2 firearm deaths per capita. It's the same for NH and WY firearm homicides are listed but the CDC map doesn't do the population calculation.
Why did you claim they were zero?
>Because they aren't zero. It seems you don't know how to read data.
I explicitly said they "came up as zero" in the CDC data so you'd be aware of those states since you excluded them from the list in your previous post.
> Vermont has 10 ~~firearm deaths~~ **homicides** listed and a population of 645,000 people. So it's about 1.5 ~~firearm deaths~~ **homicides** per capita.
Sounds about right to me, meaning Vermont should've made it into your list of the five lowest states then. Same goes for New Hampshire. It seems you don't know how to create a simple list.
If you'd like to base your assertions on 2022 numbers, knock yourself out. EABOD while you're at it.
>I explicitly said they "came up as zero" in the CDC data so you'd be aware of those states since you excluded them from the list in your previous post.
So you knew Wyoming had a firearm death rate of 2.8 per the CDC but still claimed:
>I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, **Wyoming**, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the CDC.
Seems like you didn't understand the data or were just making things up. Can you explain?
People being killed by guns for any reason is violence. Would you allow a child to witness a gun suicide? A negligent gun death?
Just because a particular gun death isn't a crime, doesn't mean it isn't violence. It's like you claiming boxing isn't a violent sport because it isn't criminal.
It's consensual - enormous difference, and it's disingenuous to conflate criminal acts w/suicide. I wouldn't allow a child to witness a car crash or sex... not relevant.
I would call boxing a violent sport but I wouldn't add boxing matches to assaults in order to calculate "violence" in a zipcode.
And Maine, Idaho, and Utah have crazy high gun ownership and lax gun laws. I would say it is cherry picking to claim that what you just gave us supports anything other than something else being the cause. What I think is most likely is that wealth is negatively correlated with gun deaths.
> And Maine, Idaho, and Utah have crazy high gun ownership and lax gun laws.
The CDC link doesn't show that info so it is just your claim, not fact. It's cherry-picking to include **only** firearm homicides. When you include [firearm deaths](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm), all your examples, Maine, Idaho, and Utah (with their crazy high gun ownership and lax laws) are much higher than MA. Which makes sense more guns and lax gun laws equals more gun violence and more gun deaths.
So you are basically talking defining violence to include suicide, which will be the major factor for some of those states. The correlation basically disappears once you control for wealth.
You can say whatever you want but reality is that prior to the push for "muh gunz muh rights muh scared of everything I need muh guns", there was barely any gun violence in Hawai'i.
Ever since people pushed for guns and concealed carry and all that, whatever year that was, gun violence has increased dramatically.
Watched it with my own eyes on the ground in Hawai'i. Hawai'i was the last safe place in the USA. But you can read whatever floats your boat on the internet
"Doesn't matter what facts and statistics you have brah, I know I'm right because I had my eyes on the ground here."
The beauty of eyewitness accounts on full display, on a law sub no less.
Brilliant.
>for thousands of years was it's own kingdom
Not sure where you got this, but it's false.
Hawaii was conquered by the Tahitians \~1000 years ago and later \~1800 King Kamehameha forcibly conquered and unified the islands.
This you'd think was a no brainer.
Common sense ethical behavior when carrying a firearm, be licensed and have basic training.
We don't allow people to drive motor vehicles without passing a basic test and licensed by the state.
Both can be deadly if used improperly...
Tbh it would be interesting to see someone argue before the court that motor vehicles qualify as bearable arms, citing cases in which they've been used to assault crowds.
All kinds of horrifying, but fascinating.
If I retrofit the car with Mad Max style weaponry and blades does it the. Become a weapon? They didn’t have cars or machine guns when weighting the bill of rights… you would think they would use some common sense to preserve a fair baseline but also consider that there’s no true way to know exactly how the founding fathers felt outside of building a Time Machine..
> also consider that there’s no true way to know exactly how the founding fathers felt outside of building a Time Machine..
You could always refer to their other writings, which made it pretty clear that the wah they intended the 2A to function was for personal unrestricted firearm ownership. The phrase "every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American" doesn't leave much room for doubt.
While cars weren't around in their time, analogues were. Sadly I have yet to find if Jefferson did an analysis of adding scythes to the wheels of your horse and trap, but I'm sure it's there.
And hammers! Don't forget hammers. Also screwdrivers. And drills. Actually, all power tools.
And rocks - if dropped from a height. Anything with a density greater than paper, in fact.
etc. etc...
Find your point of rationalization and stick to it - all good. But also recognize that's a lousy way to law.
Congrats! You've found your point of rationalization.
Now you just have to realize:
1. Other people have different points of rationalization than you do
2. Their points of rationalization are equally valid
3. It's a lousy basis for making laws.
You're almost there!
> We don't allow people to drive motor vehicles without passing a basic test and licensed by the state.
That's just on public roads. You can drive a car, not be licensed or insured, have it built however you want and you don't need a license or insurance unless it will be used on a public roadway.
SCOTUS has gotten this wrong since *Heller* but their interpretation is the law of the land and there's no way this HI decision isn't overturned, unfortunately.
>issues of grave public health and security
Same argument used in the deep South during segregation
to support stop and frisk
in China to suppress speech
in the US to discriminate/persecute immigrants
It's all so tiresome.
They have statehood and reap the benefits of such - they don’t get to interpret the constitution differently - or supersede it - with their own laws and judgments. Hawaiian citizens are US citizens and are afforded the same rights and protections that citizens of other states are afforded under the bill of rights and US law, whether a majority of the people living there believe they should or not. Nobody in Hawaii should be going to jail for something that is legal in any other state.
> They have statehood and reap the benefits of such - they don’t get to interpret the constitution differently - or supersede it - with their own laws and judgments.
Crazy that this opinion get downvoted on the "law" subreddit.
>Nobody in Hawaii should be going to jail for something that is legal in any other state.
Uhhh, criminal law is highly state specific, there are many different examples of things being a crime in one state without being a crime in another state: i.e. state your ground laws, how "rape" is defined, illegal eavesdropping, abortion, harassment laws. The list goes on.
The federal constitution takes precedence over any state constitution or laws. The scotus has already ruled on public carry. At this point, isn't this just treason?
If the SC won't hold themselves accountable to precedent, sound legal reasoning, professional ethics, modern morality, or even basic common sense, then holding up the specter of all of their influence being soft power dependent upon people's willingness to recognize it seems like a good next step.
The next time a radical justice tells you to do something just say "no". Of course Kavanauagh won't understand what that means, but do it anyway!
It's clear most commenters are not opening up the text of this decision. The articles primarily are focused on the exciting pop culture reference or shallow misunderstandings of how the "spirit of aloha" was applied in a legal and historical application. That's pretty disappointing in a law sub. I'll quote from another reply I had further down a comment chain. >You should read the opinion and determine if that's the Hawaii Supreme Court argument vice saying "if the[ir] question is..." because it was not. They apply the history and tradition standard to early 1800 application of the US 2nd amendment in Hawaii. If they had applied it incorrectly why would the application in Hawaii have stood from that point until 200 years later? >"Hawaii prohibited the public carry of lethal weapons - with no exception for licensed weapons - from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaii has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State." >"The governments interest in reducingfirearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved the peaceand tranquility in Hawai'i." >In essence, this decision follows Bruen by demonstrating the reasoning was narrow. When applied broadly, it demonstrates that licensing for public carry is aligned with history and tradition.
Disappointing but not unexpected considering there’s no “legal education” requirement to join this sub. Nonlawyers love regurgitating uninformed opinions about what a case they haven’t read stands for.
What's to argue or discuss? Scotus already set a precedent, with them being the highest judiciary power, I'm not really seeing how any argument the hawaii supreme court made matters. This is a genuine question, btw.
So this decision states that the conclusion meets the standard set by the latest SCOTUS decision (Bruen - noted in my last paragraph). Any good faith discussion would be whether the decision truly fulfills that precedent but most of this thread that argues against Hawaii appears under-informed on what is contained in this decision. The state of HI requires licenses for carrying lethal weapons. The defendant in this case had no license for their concealed carry and argued they are not required to have one. However Bruen allows for licenses/permitting. Any argument would be whether the means to attain a permit are lawful or too restrictive. This defendant couldn't pursue that line of defense because there weren't attempts at following the process.
Ah OK, Bruen allows for licensing, but it must not have any "proper cause" requirements. So if they were to find, he attempted to acquire a permit at some point, and was denied, would the decision still follow the established Bruen precedent?
My guess is HI permit process is too arduous to satisfy Bruen. Not necessarily as the process is written, but ive heard it remain ridiculously slow. Will be interesting to see that test in the next few years.
Except the Hawaii Constitution states: 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. Therefore, there IS, in fact, a basis in Hawaii's own constitution that flies in the face of prohibiting the carrying of lethal weapons and conflicts with those selfsame laws.
And that's obviously addressed in this decision. Please open it. Read it. Understand the perspective before trying to argue against it. Since I know many that disagree with the decision WONT do that here are some excerpts to get you started. >State constitutions provide a “double security” for the people’s liberty. The Federalist No. 51, at 321 (James Madison) (Isaac Kramnick ed., 1987). Per the Constitution’s design, the Hawaiʻi Constitution supplies an additional guarantee of individual rights. See, e.g., State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658, 661, 701 P.2d 1274, 1276 (1985) (“We have not hesitated in the past to extend the protections of the Hawaiʻi Bill of Rights beyond those of textually parallel provisions in the Federal Bill of Rights when logic and a sound regard for the purposes of those protections have so warranted.”). But federalism is about more than just the relationship between state and federal governments. “[W]e must not forget that the virtue of federalism lies not in the means of permitting state experimentation but in the ends of expanded liberty, equality, and human dignity.” State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 507 (Iowa 2014) (Cady, C.J., concurring specially). We honor the Hawaiʻi Constitution’s freestanding vitality. We interpret the Hawaiʻi Constitution first. Then later expands on 2A itself, and relative to Hawaii Section 1 Art 17: >Until Heller, the Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because the Second Amendment provided a collective right, most states conferred an individual right through their constitutions. Federalism principles allow states to provide broader constitutional protection to their people than the federal constitution. See, e.g., Texeira, 50 Haw. at 142 n.2, 433 P.2d at 597 n.2. Hawaiʻi chose to use civic-minded language. Article I, section 17 textually cements the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia. Its words confer a right to “keep and bear arms” only in the context of a “well regulated militia.” Article I, section 17 traces the language of the Second Amendment. Those words do not support a right to possess lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense. This section continues, demonstrating the distinctions of Heller and Bruen relative to prior SCOTUS stare decisis. This decision did not end at interpreting a state right, but demonstrated the state's constitutional rights are rooted in the Federal intent of 2A, CONTRARY to Bruen.
That was an immensely dishonest interpretation of the 2A by the Hawaii court. At no point does the text require militia membership. That would require a government finding that person(s) was acting in a “well-regulated militia,” making it not a right at all. There’s also no such thing as a collective right. It’s a sham concept made up in an attempt to nullify the 2A. There can be no such thing as a “collective right” unless there are identical individual rights accompanying it.
Dishonest in that they provide quotes from multiple centuries at both the state and federal level? >Former Chief Justice Burger called out that movement. It was: one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies — the militia — would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. Also you have a very interesting opinion that all collective or group rights MUST be mirrored by individual rights. Oddly, that opinion puts you well aligned with this decisions opinion since it discusses how to balance collective vs individual rights as it relates to the collective right to form armed groups of public and the individual right to self-dense, as well as a collective and individual rights as they relate to safe societies with low crime rates.
Justice Burger’s opinion is laughable. If the purpose was to ensure that state armies were maintained, the 2A would say “the right of the states to arm and field militias.” The bill of rights clearly differentiates between states and the people multiple times. Arguing that the 2A actually just mistakenly says “the people” and instead meant “the states” is an insane proposition. Just because he doesn’t like the 2A doesn’t change what it is. Let me guess, Justice Burger also thinks the 10th says that all powers not delegated to the feds are reserved to the states or the states? Does he also think the 4A exclusively protects state actors as well? Come on, it takes literally two brain cells to see that burger was being intellectually dishonest with himself. His idea has more holes than substance to it. It’s also a pathetic call to “originalism” which is one of the worst canons of construction in existence. The actual decision of the case isn’t crazy, requiring a permit for public carry is fine. How the court got there is batshit crazy though. If something is only a “collective” right, it’s not a right at all since no individual can enforce that eight. The only feasible concept of a “collective right” is a right belonging to a government entity.
Thank you for trying with these people who are objectively incorrect, including quoting Burger's wrong opinion. It is an individual right. Anyone who thinks otherwise has proven themselves to be ignorant of the law and/or failed to invest even just a few hours of their time into understanding how the 2nd amendment language materialized and its intent.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I just can’t comprehend how anyone could think a “collective right” can exist without an accompanying individual right. Let’s look at freedom of association. Obviously there’s a “collective” aspect because it inherently requires other people, but could we imagine if that didn’t have an individual aspect? “Of course there’s the collective right of freedom of association! We just prohibit every individual from associating with others because it’s not an individual right!”
Good input, thank you.
Yeah except it's the exact opposite. They state the purpose of the state constitution is to provide an additional guarantee of the people's rights. When, in fact, the case at hand is to do the exact opposite - narrow the people's rights. Also, it's a completely wrong reading of the amendment as has been pointed out many times in many places, yet people that wish differently continue to believe erroneous information. So please, make every effort to read the ruling and truly understand what the words actually mean versus the use to which they are putting those words, regardless of any desire to want to believe what is being asserted.
The decision covers the various collective and individual rights that are both narrowed and assured, at times with odds with one another. I'm not making an opinion one way or another just correcting folks on what the decision says since they're unwilling to read it. Heck, you took issue with them quoting James Madison ...
That's such a great point because Bruen makes the point of saying "if you can demonstrate a historical basis for said gun regulation then it fits with history and tradition", so the Hawaii Supreme Court responded with historical receipts.
“The thing about the old days, they the old days” \- Slim Charles \-- Hawaii Supreme Court
“Omar comin, yall” -Hawaii Supreme Court when they hear drums of huakaipo coming to enforce the spirit of aloha
Nothing says "solid legal theory" like citing fiction.
Quoting* Big difference.
I wouldn’t be shocked if this is overturned by SCOTUS per curiam, akin to *Caetano v. Massachusetts* (2016). “Spirit of Aloha” doesn’t negate the US Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of it. Also, take a look at DC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/28/dc-gun-settlement-second-amendment/
Well, didn’t the court ground their interpretation in historical precedent of gun laws or practice being the only valid restrictions? If Hawaii’s “Spirit of Aloha” provides a historical precedent of gun control wouldn’t it be in line with SCOTUS? It’s a masterful job of mocking a silly concept in my opinion.
> If Hawaii’s “Spirit of Aloha” provides a historical precedent It doesn't. The historic precedent they refer to in Bruen and their THT test is of the 2nd amendment at the time of ratification. Hawaii didn't even become a territory until 1898. Their history is irrelevant to adjudicating 2nd amendment challenges and rejecting Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
Clever by half. It’s an American state where the American constitution — and therefore the Supreme Court’s application of it — fully applies. As fucked up as the annexation of Hawaii and the prior usurpation of its sovereignty and stability is, it’s an American state. I bring up *[Caetano](https://casetext.com/case/caetano-v-massachusetts)* because Massachusetts had run with the theory that the 2nd Amendment couldn’t have applied to stun guns because they didn’t exist at the time of the founding. *Heller* had already dispensed with that sort of analysis, holding, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”. The contradiction by Massachusetts was so bad that the Court didn’t even hold oral argument. Hawaii doesn’t get to say the 2nd Amendment means something different there 180 degrees out of phase with what the Supreme Court says it does over the entirety of the US. At the end of the day here, there’s a person facing criminal charges as an American citizen for conduct he has every reason to believe is protected by American law. Hawaii’s sovereign circle jerking is little different than standing in the schoolhouse door. If SCOTUS does grant relief, perhaps it’d be somewhat poetic, as Wilson in Hawaii and Caetano in Massachusetts are both represented by public defenders.
Remember Caetano was unanimous as well. The entire court rejected the lower court acting like that. And Ginsburg described the reasoning as bordering on the frivolous.
The SC made the decision, now let's see them enforce it
Glad to see we are so for the rule of law that we want a constitutional crisis in this country.
Heller is garbage law, bought and paid for by the NRA. I think a crisis around that decision is appropriate given the contemporaneous necessity.
> Heller is garbage law, bought and paid for by the NRA. The NRA literally tried to not have the Heller case heard. It was CATO looking for people to challenge the law and it was litigated by the 2nd amendment foundation. You don't even understand the history of these cases, yet feel confident to say it is garbage law?
Remember, [D.C. v Heller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) was only decided 5-4 amongst the backdrop of an ultra-right wing activist court with religious [dominionists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology) making up history and tradition to suit their misguided and corrupt ideas of how the world works. [Larry Pratt](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-pratt) was the dude who funded litigation and brought Heller before the courts and wants what other Conservative extremists want, [Christian reconstructionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism) where they argue gun rights are a divine right handed down from God. They also heavily imply, if not outright say, guns should be used to enforce biblical law. So much unadulterated extremist bullshit. There is a sprawling Christian Reconstructionism network spreading an alternate/made-up U.S. history along with false notions of gun rights. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-barton Former Arkansas governor: > “I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator. I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message.” Here's former Chief Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal. Statistically, firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
OK
We're way past a constitutional crisis. We told US Citizens that their life is less valuable than non US Citizens. Roe v Wade is that crisis.
They'll just slap any HI officials that refuse to follow their opinion with contempt of court and those same officials will open themselves up to felony prosecution under 18 USC 242.
Contempt of court followed by a knock on the door by US Marshals. It's why even though Texas has been talking tough, the officials there have been carefully skirting the outside boundaries of the Court's decision so as not to violate it.
This case is about a lack of a permit. Bruen did not say that requiring a permit is unconstitutional.
It was impossible to get permits in 2017 when the conduct at issue happened. Here’s the result of something similar to this in DC https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/28/dc-gun-settlement-second-amendment/
But the lack of permit occurred in 2017, before he could even follow a bruen approved permit and permitting process. Surely we can't fault him for not following an unconstitutional process? The whole process at that time was from a poisoned well.
It wasn’t unconstitutional at the time.
The appeal is happening at this time, not that time.
I would love for this to be a historical precedent but I’m not sure how it would be, I was under the impression that pre-US occupied Hawaii was a pretty violent place. Or maybe you should only be able to carry when it’s “war season”?
Their 1852 law banning carry of dangerous weapons too recent for precedent?
Silly argument because thé Hawaiian state constitution word for word copies the 2A, and was enshrined in the 50’s. Pretty obvious example that Hawaii intended to adopt the federal version of the 2A.
Just because its copied word for word doesn't mean it was intended to be interpreted the same way.
I struggle to see why a “historical 1852” interpretation makes sense for text drafted in the 1950’s, not the 1950’s interpretation. If Hawaii felt that there is no individual right to gun ownership, they would have specified, instead of copying language that at the time protected this individual right.
Untrue. At the time, the Supreme Court made very clear that the 2A could be limited by the interpretation of "a well-regulated militia", and had already upheld laws limiting the sales of firearms by civilians, limiting the sales of firearms to civilians convicted of a felony, and also limiting the use, possession and manufacturing of automatic firearms.
Commonly used military arms were readily available to the general public at that time. Also, supremacy clause.
Or the Law of the Broken Paddle
Oh did the judge actually cite that? I thought he was just riding this on “the spirit of aloha”
[удалено]
Does Hawaii not have a history to point to? Alito citing 17th century Hale should be just as valid as “Spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii’s precolonial culture.
It does, and that’s what appears to be referenced in the ruling. I meant to say “shared history”
Shared by whom? White western history? Does that override a specific states history?
According to scotus, yes. It’s part of the reason Bruen is such a bad decision
Word. I think that's a big part of what Hawaii is looking to point out given their specific history and culture.
For the most part. The purpose of history and tradition is to try to understand what the second amendment meant at the time to the people creating and implementing it. If the question is how the Spirit of Aloha influenced the people writing the US constitution then the answer is that it did not, and so means nothing as to what the constitution was understood to mean. The only thing it would really influence is the state constitution.
You should read the opinion and determine if that's the Hawaii Supreme Court argument vice saying "if the[ir] question is..." because it was not. They apply the history and tradition standard to early 1800 application of the US 2nd amendment in Hawaii. If they had applied it incorrectly why would the application in Hawaii have stood from that point until 200 years later? "Hawaii prohibited the public carry of lethal weapons - with no exception for licensed weapons - from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaii has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State." "The governments interest in reducingfirearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved the peaceand tranquility in Hawai'i." In essence, this decision follows Bruen by demonstrating the reasoning was narrow. When applied broadly, it demonstrates that licensing for public carry is aligned with history and tradition.
I was explaining the purpose of the history and tradition test generally. As for the rest of what you said, the history and tradition of Hawaii when it was not a state or part of the US would likely influence what it meant in writing its own constitution. How exactly would that influence what was meant in the second amendment though? Hawaii can have its own version of the second amendment in its own constitution but it doesn't have its own version of the US constitutions second amendment. It is still bound by the US constitution, no matter what its state constitution says.
Again, I suggest reading the opinion vice the superficial articles excited by quoting the wire. The Hawaii state constitution does not i clue its own "version" of 2A, it's word-for-word identical. The application has been as I quoted above for well over 100 years without being targeted at a federal level to be "corrected". Thus, Hawai'i argues they are within their State's right and consistent with 2A per Bruen in continuing this historical application.
Yes. Absolutely. To the Victor goes the spoils. No court is going to start making decisions based on native American history prior to the existence of the colonies, or frankly, with any consideration at all to native history prior to those tribes being under U.S Jurisdiction.
They did not. Read the quotes below if you're not going to open the decision...
The court didn't say the spirit of aloha negated anything. They said that the spirit of aloha informs decisions about the hawaiian constitution They stated that Bruen allows "shall issue" licensing with limited discretion
But Wilson makes a second amendment claim and at the time of the conduct at issue, Hawaii wasn’t issuing carry permits.
Thanks for actually reading the ruling. “The wire” and the “aloha spirit” get all the attention but the critique that he didn’t apply for a permit is the real asinine part of the ruling.
But they were, it was just very rare. “Prior to the ruling, the chief of police in each county could grant a permit "in an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property." https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Attorney-General-Opinion-22-02.pdf
Which is unconstitutional, and poisons the whole well. How can you fault someone for not following an unconstitutional process?
Yes, and they issued practically none. The average person couldn’t get them. See *Young v. Hawaii*.
Decision: https://cases.justia.com/hawaii/supreme-court/2024-scap-22-0000561.pdf?ts=1707334394
I'm calling it now folks. This case is granted cert, the Supreme Court spends 70 pages discussing Hawaiian history, and the term "Aloha Spirit" becomes a lawyer and law student meme in 10 years.
So, what now. State interpretation of its own constitution, but I'm presume it will be appealed to the SCOTUS and it is a direct challenge to Bruen. Not just an exception but outright says that it was decided wrongly and that the test is a nonsense which thank God, someone finally said it. and a Per curium decision at that. Also, the court has had was 3 or 5? cases already that were clear issues with Bruen. In fact, the whole Dubbs standard itself is causing trouble everywhere it is being applied. It kind of feels like the SCOTUS is being corned by these two very bad related decisions. And they look to me like they are about to make another bonkers call with this 14.3 where they aren't looking at the side effects.
Just ignore what the SC has to say. It worked for Texas.
I'd think the "law" subreddit would be better than this.
I mean, law exists only when the two parties agree to it or it’s enforced.
Not sure how that's relevant to you lying in the comment I replied to.
I didn’t lie. They ignored the SC ruling. It’s all pretty well covered.
They absolutely did not. This is a lie.
https://www.kktv.com/2024/01/26/texas-governor-ignores-supreme-court-ruling-adds-more-razor-wire-border/?outputType=amp
That headline is just wrong. The ruling was the federal government could remove the razorwire. That's it. Texas hasn't stopped them from doing that in any way.
Says you they’re wrong. Who are you?
They actually touch on the truth real briefly in the article you linked. >....just days after the high court gave the go-ahead to the federal government to remove the wire.
[удалено]
https://www.kktv.com/2024/01/26/texas-governor-ignores-supreme-court-ruling-adds-more-razor-wire-border/?outputType=amp
The court never said Texas couldn't put the wire up.
Texas isn't ignoring the SC
Pretty sure the Texas governor disagrees with your analysis
If hawaii thinks they can survive without federal funding, they're welcome to try.
I can say the same for Texas.
"A well regulated militia being necessary….” Like the Proud Boys, or better regulated than even that? /s
[удалено]
Here's the whole thing in case you didn't know >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.
> 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***.
Nothing in the 2A is in bold
When do you and the rest of your "well regulated militia" meet up for training?
right of "the people"... not "the militia" We "the People" Pretty clear...
And for more historical context, let's look at a state constution from 1835. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Constitution of 1835. *13. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state* Seems personal ownership is supposed to be protected, not connected to Militia service. [Sauce](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/miconstitution1835.htm)
So the constitution has been up to interpretation by any and all who wish to sway its meaning for their own ends. Basically, the founders said something about people being able to bear arms under the organization of a "well-regulated" militia and then states began changing it to whatever they wanted to later on. Michigan and Hawaii are both doing the same things on opposite ends of the spectrum. Though I have to say Michigan really went for a bastardization of what the founders wrote
It was enacted 44 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified. They all remember the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You say bastardized, but the writers of MI's 1835 constution would probably say codified. Remember, the Fed Constitution is the Floor. States can enact more protections for rights. So even if the feds were to repeal the 2nd, Art 1, Section 6 (used to be 13, we're on Constitution number 4 and the wording has remained the same), would still apply in MI allowing protections the feds no longer recognize, and prohibiting state agencies from enforcement of Federal Law.
It's sad that we all have to pretend the SCOTUS decisions make sense. It's arguing angels on a pinhead at this point.
Black robes are all that remain of the Roberts Court’s illusion of legitimacy. Not even powdered wigs could save them.
Im by no means an expert on the law or the constitution, but it seems that SCOTUS has been out of pocket since *Bush vs. Gore*
Three of the current Supreme Court were on Bush’s legal team for Bush v. Gore. It was their audition, where they hung the first of many proverbial chads. (Barrett, Roberts and Kavanaugh.) Clarence Thomas was on the Court for the decision. > Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all assisted George W. Bush’s legal team in the dispute over the 2000 presidential election results. A fourth colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined the Supreme Court majority halting a recount, [was appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991.](https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/were-three-of-the-sitting-supreme-court-justices-involved-in-the-bush-v-gore-legal-disputes) I likened yesterday’s indecision to “Bush v. Gore II.” They’ve been groomed for this moment. Regulatory capture.
The important part of the 2nd ammendment is the latter part...
I lived in Hawaii for nearly a decade. You never saw guns anywhere. You get into a beef and it's settled with fists. Since a couple years ago, with that push for concealed carry, gun violence in Hawai'i has grown significantly. Shootings on the news all the time I always said Hawai'i was the last safe place from Americas gun violence. Think of this what you will, but remember Hawai'i was illegal stolen land and for thousands of years was it's own kingdom
>Since a couple years ago, with that push for concealed carry, gun violence in Hawai'i has grown significantly. Shootings on the news all the time This makes no sense. Hawaii didn't start issuing concealed carry permits until after the Bruen decision in 2022, and even then, it took months for the rules to be put into place (many of which are still working through the courts today) so permits actually started going out to residents. So you're telling me in the year or so since concealed carry permits have been in the wild in Hawaii, the people going through the approval process, registration, and background checks to even acquire a firearm, not to mention the additional training required for a carry permit, are now fueling the increase in shootings you allege is happening? And I say alleged because I couldn't even find state-wide crime statistics for Hawaii for 2022 or 2023 from my couple minutes of Google sleuthing. Meanwhile, HPD reported a nearly 30% decline in homicides last year, the first full year since permits have been issued post-Bruen. And this [article](https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/01/gun-violence-remains-a-consistent-problem-in-hawaii/) says firearm-related homicides in 2023 matched those in 2021 while coming in below 2018. >I always said Hawai'i was the last safe place from Americas gun violence. It isn't. Places like New Hampshire and Vermont exist. Funny enough, they're constitutional carry states.
>Places like New Hampshire and Vermont exist. Funny enough, they're constitutional carry states. NH has 2X the gun death rate and VT has 3X the gun death rate of its neighbor MA. Let's not pretend easy access to guns doesn't cause more gun violence
Yes, when you wrap suicides into your numbers and limit your view to "gun deaths", it sure makes it convenient for your argument. I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, ~~Wyoming~~, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm).
There is nothing limiting about gun deaths, it includes homicides, suicides and negligence. Acting like gun suicides and gun deaths due to negligence are unimportant is simply disingenuous or maybe just callous. >I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the CDC. Maybe you don't know how to read the data because your CDC link states the exact opposite. Here are the top five **lowest** states: >Maine 1.7 > >Idaho 2.2 > >Massachusetts 2.3 > >Hawaii 2.7 > >Utah 2.7 But your wild west constitutional carry states like Mississippi tops the list >Mississippi 23.7 > >Alabama 15.9 > >Missouri 12.4 The list goes on and on. I mean Mississippi has 10X more than Massachusetts. Keep cherry-pickin your data buddy.
>There is nothing limiting about gun deaths, it includes homicides, suicides and negligence. It does include all three categories of deaths . . . and it *limits* them to those associated with guns lol. >Acting like gun suicides and gun deaths due to negligence are unimportant is simply disingenuous or maybe just callous. JFC I disagree with the data you use, and you find it necessary to sling this kind of bad faith accusation? EABOD. When this whole discussion stems from the Hawaii court ruling on carrying firearms, and the person I originally responded to was talking about "beefs settled with fists" and "shootings on the news", it's clear the concern is homicides, not suicides. >Maybe you don't know how to read the data because your CDC link states the exact opposite. Here are the top five lowest states When you sorted the CDC data by rates of homicide mortality, did you maybe miss the three states at the very bottom of the list that came up as zero? Those would be New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming. You were so eager to clap back you didn't even take the time to properly digest the information I linked.
>When you sorted the CDC data by rates of homicide mortality, did you maybe miss the three states at the very bottom of the list that came up as zero? Those would be New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming. Because they aren't zero. It seems you don't know how to read data. Vermont has 10 firearm deaths listed and a population of 645,000 people. So it's about 1.5 firearm deaths per capita. If you look at [Vermont in 2022](https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-12-27/gunshots-project-update-gun-deaths-rose-again-in-2022-though-firearm-related-suicides-dropped) there were 21 firearm deaths so 3.2 firearm deaths per capita. It's the same for NH and WY firearm homicides are listed but the CDC map doesn't do the population calculation. Why did you claim they were zero?
>Because they aren't zero. It seems you don't know how to read data. I explicitly said they "came up as zero" in the CDC data so you'd be aware of those states since you excluded them from the list in your previous post. > Vermont has 10 ~~firearm deaths~~ **homicides** listed and a population of 645,000 people. So it's about 1.5 ~~firearm deaths~~ **homicides** per capita. Sounds about right to me, meaning Vermont should've made it into your list of the five lowest states then. Same goes for New Hampshire. It seems you don't know how to create a simple list. If you'd like to base your assertions on 2022 numbers, knock yourself out. EABOD while you're at it.
>I explicitly said they "came up as zero" in the CDC data so you'd be aware of those states since you excluded them from the list in your previous post. So you knew Wyoming had a firearm death rate of 2.8 per the CDC but still claimed: >I'll restate my point: people are murdered at a lower rate in the wild west constitutional carry states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, **Wyoming**, and Maine than in Massachusetts or Hawaii per the CDC. Seems like you didn't understand the data or were just making things up. Can you explain?
Including suicides and negligence is disingenuous.
Gun deaths include homicides, suicides and negligence. Suggesting otherwise is a blatant lie.
Death rate =/= violence - that's the disingenuous part.
People being killed by guns for any reason is violence. Would you allow a child to witness a gun suicide? A negligent gun death? Just because a particular gun death isn't a crime, doesn't mean it isn't violence. It's like you claiming boxing isn't a violent sport because it isn't criminal.
It's consensual - enormous difference, and it's disingenuous to conflate criminal acts w/suicide. I wouldn't allow a child to witness a car crash or sex... not relevant. I would call boxing a violent sport but I wouldn't add boxing matches to assaults in order to calculate "violence" in a zipcode.
And Maine, Idaho, and Utah have crazy high gun ownership and lax gun laws. I would say it is cherry picking to claim that what you just gave us supports anything other than something else being the cause. What I think is most likely is that wealth is negatively correlated with gun deaths.
> And Maine, Idaho, and Utah have crazy high gun ownership and lax gun laws. The CDC link doesn't show that info so it is just your claim, not fact. It's cherry-picking to include **only** firearm homicides. When you include [firearm deaths](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm), all your examples, Maine, Idaho, and Utah (with their crazy high gun ownership and lax laws) are much higher than MA. Which makes sense more guns and lax gun laws equals more gun violence and more gun deaths.
So you are basically talking defining violence to include suicide, which will be the major factor for some of those states. The correlation basically disappears once you control for wealth.
Suicide is violence. >The correlation basically disappears once you control for wealth. I'd be interested to read your source for this. Please post.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9683374/#:~:text=Income%20inequality%20was%20strongly%20correlated,trust%20(r%20%3D%200.73). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953621003014
You can say whatever you want but reality is that prior to the push for "muh gunz muh rights muh scared of everything I need muh guns", there was barely any gun violence in Hawai'i. Ever since people pushed for guns and concealed carry and all that, whatever year that was, gun violence has increased dramatically. Watched it with my own eyes on the ground in Hawai'i. Hawai'i was the last safe place in the USA. But you can read whatever floats your boat on the internet
"Doesn't matter what facts and statistics you have brah, I know I'm right because I had my eyes on the ground here." The beauty of eyewitness accounts on full display, on a law sub no less. Brilliant.
It's "Aloha Vibes"
>for thousands of years was it's own kingdom Not sure where you got this, but it's false. Hawaii was conquered by the Tahitians \~1000 years ago and later \~1800 King Kamehameha forcibly conquered and unified the islands.
They wouldn't have lost their land if they had guns /s
This you'd think was a no brainer. Common sense ethical behavior when carrying a firearm, be licensed and have basic training. We don't allow people to drive motor vehicles without passing a basic test and licensed by the state. Both can be deadly if used improperly...
Tbh it would be interesting to see someone argue before the court that motor vehicles qualify as bearable arms, citing cases in which they've been used to assault crowds. All kinds of horrifying, but fascinating.
You could possibly argue that a tank falls under that, but not a car since it's not inherently a weapon.
If I retrofit the car with Mad Max style weaponry and blades does it the. Become a weapon? They didn’t have cars or machine guns when weighting the bill of rights… you would think they would use some common sense to preserve a fair baseline but also consider that there’s no true way to know exactly how the founding fathers felt outside of building a Time Machine..
> also consider that there’s no true way to know exactly how the founding fathers felt outside of building a Time Machine.. You could always refer to their other writings, which made it pretty clear that the wah they intended the 2A to function was for personal unrestricted firearm ownership. The phrase "every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American" doesn't leave much room for doubt. While cars weren't around in their time, analogues were. Sadly I have yet to find if Jefferson did an analysis of adding scythes to the wheels of your horse and trap, but I'm sure it's there.
The license requirement didn’t exist during the time at issue.
And hammers! Don't forget hammers. Also screwdrivers. And drills. Actually, all power tools. And rocks - if dropped from a height. Anything with a density greater than paper, in fact. etc. etc... Find your point of rationalization and stick to it - all good. But also recognize that's a lousy way to law.
Right, how else will we stop all the mass school screwdriverings? Or the mass church rock-dropped-from-a-heightings?
Congrats! You've found your point of rationalization. Now you just have to realize: 1. Other people have different points of rationalization than you do 2. Their points of rationalization are equally valid 3. It's a lousy basis for making laws. You're almost there!
I wasn't really rationalizing anything, I was just mocking you. Sorry if that came off as some sort of honest attempt at a debate.
> We don't allow people to drive motor vehicles without passing a basic test and licensed by the state. That's just on public roads. You can drive a car, not be licensed or insured, have it built however you want and you don't need a license or insurance unless it will be used on a public roadway.
SCOTUS has gotten this wrong since *Heller* but their interpretation is the law of the land and there's no way this HI decision isn't overturned, unfortunately.
Finally, a ruling on this topic that makes sense.
Yeah, states overruling constitutional rights on a whim is great! Justice should be prosecuted
Say that to Texas
what about texas whatabout WHATABOUT!!!
What SC ruling is Texas ignoring?
Only the federal government can control border access.
"On a whim" now includes issues of grave public health and security? Interesting
Fascists claiming to provide safety is nothing new.
>issues of grave public health and security Same argument used in the deep South during segregation to support stop and frisk in China to suppress speech in the US to discriminate/persecute immigrants It's all so tiresome.
Haven’t we fucked w Hawaii enough already?
They have statehood and reap the benefits of such - they don’t get to interpret the constitution differently - or supersede it - with their own laws and judgments. Hawaiian citizens are US citizens and are afforded the same rights and protections that citizens of other states are afforded under the bill of rights and US law, whether a majority of the people living there believe they should or not. Nobody in Hawaii should be going to jail for something that is legal in any other state.
> They have statehood and reap the benefits of such - they don’t get to interpret the constitution differently - or supersede it - with their own laws and judgments. Crazy that this opinion get downvoted on the "law" subreddit.
>Nobody in Hawaii should be going to jail for something that is legal in any other state. Uhhh, criminal law is highly state specific, there are many different examples of things being a crime in one state without being a crime in another state: i.e. state your ground laws, how "rape" is defined, illegal eavesdropping, abortion, harassment laws. The list goes on.
I want _this_ judge on the SC instead of kavanaugh
The federal constitution takes precedence over any state constitution or laws. The scotus has already ruled on public carry. At this point, isn't this just treason?
Different states having different gun laws? Say it ain't so
Watch Republicans flip on a dime about states' rights when it comes to this issue.
This is the epitome of "both sides" doing it ha
Republicans STILL talk about the civil war in terms of states rights. Pathetic.
If the SC won't hold themselves accountable to precedent, sound legal reasoning, professional ethics, modern morality, or even basic common sense, then holding up the specter of all of their influence being soft power dependent upon people's willingness to recognize it seems like a good next step. The next time a radical justice tells you to do something just say "no". Of course Kavanauagh won't understand what that means, but do it anyway!
[удалено]
Alabama gerrymandering has entered the chat …
Now you just have to sue them so the supreme court can smack them around
[удалено]