State v Wilson….Hawaii

[ladder13]

2/7/2024


The US Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling are null and void.


https://reason.com/wp-content/upload...-SC-2-7-24.pdf

“The text and purpose of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation, do not support a constitutional right to carry deadly weapons in public," Justice Todd Eddins writes in the court's opinion. And he goes further, saying "conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi's historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution." As the court sees it, Article I, Section 17, which was adopted in 1950 and mirrors the wording of the Second Amendment, imposes no restrictions on gun control in Hawaii because it does not recognize an individual right”

“The United States Supreme Court disables the states' responsibility to protect public safety, reduce gun violence, and safeguard peaceful public movement," Eddins writes. "A government by the people works."

[Model 15-4ever]

Aloha!

My last trip to Maui in 2022, I was very glad I brought my gun, when my family had trouble with some of the locals.

It's not America, folks.

[AlHunt]

Then Hawaii needs to secede because this won't survive SCOTUS, if Wilson has the zillion dollars it'll cost to get it there.

Then, of course, the state will tweak a comma or two and reinstate it, claiming it's something entirely different.

Meanwhile, The People suffer at the hands of a broken and corrupt government.

[ladder13]

A govt by corrupt people doesn’t work.

[ISCS Yoda]

Hawaii is different. Makes NY and California look normal.

[ameridaddy]

Aloha, Hawaii.

As usual, just like the other antigun states, they're daring private citizens to muster enough money to carry the issue to SCOTUS, just as the other recent Bruen scoffers are doing, and where they'll lose. Then when they eventually do lose that, they'll probably throw up all kinds of onerous paperwork, agency approvals and fees to discourage people exercising their natural right to self defense, as we see in all the antigun enclaves in CONUS.

[bushmaster1313]

The Hawaii opinion is here:
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-co...22-0000561.pdf

IMHO the Hawaii Supreme Court did NOT negate the Second Amendment. First, the opinion addresses whether the Hawaii Handgun Licensing Statutes violate the Hawaii Constitution, and it finds that they do not. This was within the power of the Hawaii Supreme Court. Then, as it had to, the Hawaii Supreme Court went on to consider whether the Hawaii Handgun Licensing Statutes violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I believe the Hawaii Supreme Court correctly observed that the Bruen Decision allows reasonable licensing statutes. The Hawaii Supreme Court then correctly upheld the conviction because the defendant did not have a license, in fact, the defendant had never applied for a license.

In other words, the Hawaii Supreme Court followed the Bruen decision of the United States Supreme Court.

The operative language of the Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion follows:

HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) allow a person to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home if they have a license issued per HRS § 134-9. See HRS § 134-25(a) (“Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or sojourn” (emphasis added)); HRS § 134-27(a) (restricting the possession of ammunition based on HRS § 134-5 and § 134-9). HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not graze Wilson’s Second Amendment right.

[emphasis added]

The case is quirky because the likely reason the defendant did not apply for a carry license is that Hawaii was one of the states that would not issue carry licenses before the Bruen decision. If the defendant had applied for a license and been denied, the outcome in the Hawaii Supreme Court may have been different.

Now you know the rest of the story.

[326MOD10]

Bushmaster1313-

Sure am glad somebody read that how to interpret a court ruling post! I know I didn't.

Thanks for the breakdown. If nobody else says so I appreciate it.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

The Hawaii opinion is here:
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-co...22-0000561.pdf

IMHO the Hawaii Supreme Court did NOT negate the Second Amendment. First, the opinion addresses whether the Hawaii Handgun Licensing Statutes violate the Hawaii Constitution, and it finds that they do not. This was within the power of the Hawaii Supreme Court. Then, as it had to, the Hawaii Supreme Court went on to consider whether the Hawaii Handgun Licensing Statutes violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I believe the Hawaii Supreme Court correctly observed that the Bruen Decision allows reasonable licensing statutes. The Hawaii Supreme Court then correctly upheld the conviction because the defendant did not have a license, in fact, the defendant had never applied for a license.

In other words, the Hawaii Supreme Court followed the Bruen decision of the United States Supreme Court.

The operative language of the Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion follows:

[emphasis added]

The case is quirky because the likely reason the defendant did not apply for a carry license is that Hawaii was one of the states that would not issue carry licenses before the Bruen decision. If the defendant had applied for a license and been denied, the outcome in the Hawaii Supreme Court may have been different.

Now you know the rest of the story.

SCOTUS ruled long ago that "may issue" concealed carry laws are unconstitutional. That's how we here in Illinois went from being the last state in the Union to allow concealed carry to having a "shall issue" carry license law. That was well before Bruen.

Perhaps the Hawaii court just decided to delay the inevitable, knowing they will lose in SCOTUS. I don't disagree that the plaintiff in the case should have attempted to get a permit and then sue when it was denied. The plaintiff should go back and apply for a carry permit and then take it from there.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Borderboss

SCOTUS ruled long ago that "may issue" concealed carry laws are unconstitutional. That's how we here in Illinois went from being the last state in the Union to allow concealed carry to having a "shall issue" carry license law. That was well before Bruen.

Perhaps the Hawaii court just decided to delay the inevitable, knowing they will lose in SCOTUS. I don't disagree that the plaintiff in the case should have attempted to get a permit and then sue when it was denied. The plaintiff should go back and apply for a carry permit and then take it from there.

Actually, iIRC it was the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which replaced “May Issue” with “Shall Issue” in Illinois.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Actually, iIRC it was the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which replaced “May Issue” with “Shall Issue” in Illinois.

When the law came down originally, it was always "Shall issue". We went straight from no CCL to shall-issue CCL.

[326MOD10]

I read most of the opinion and don't believe this is a case that will make it anywhere in the Federal system.

Guy has no standing in what he is claiming because Bruen won't apply.

You can't go back and do the thing that would have made your action legal after you have committed the crime and then say you are no longer guilty.

That would be like getting a ticket for speeding and no DL. Then going in and getting a DL and claiming you aren't guilty of the charge because you now have one.

This a criminal case not a civil one.

Creative attempt to beat a criminal charge for sure. Just not a 2A case.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by AlHunt

Then Hawaii needs to secede...

More than a few there would be happy to do so given what I observed on Maui in 2015.

[glenwolde]

They may have more standing to secede than any state. They were unlawfully annexed by force. The history is pretty fascinating. Unless you're Hawaiian, then it's tragic.

If you study it you'll get to the Hawaii Citizen Guard 1886 Winchesters and the part they played in overthrowing the Sovereign Government of Hawaii.

Their firearms laws have been onerous for a long time. Used to be (1970's) you had to pick out the gun, go get a permit, go back and get the gun, go back with the gun to the permit office. That's for all firearms. There was only one permit office at the main police station. Most of the gun stores were within a few blocks.

The only positive thing I can say is at the time, state law did not prevent handguns at 18. That's probably no longer true. I left in '77.

[GaryS]

When we were there in 2009 we were advised to stick to the tourist places on Maui and Oahu. We were told that the locals were friendly to tourists in tourist places, but far less so in regular areas.

Outside of Pearl Harbor, the Punch Bowl, and Waikiki, Honolulu is just another big, dirty, high crime city.

Originally Posted by Model 15-4ever

Aloha!

My last trip to Maui in 2022, I was very glad I brought my gun, when my family had trouble with some of the locals.

It's not America, folks.

[Racer X]

the best part of the ruling is, that they had to enter into the court record that the property owner protected himself and his property from 4 tresspassers, of which at least one was armed, by using his AR platform rifle. Now that's embarrising for the anti gun crowd.........