The lunatics on Hawaii’s high court played their hand poorly, declaring that they see the 2nd Amendment different than the US Supreme Court.

Read this.  They’ve just drastically increased the likelihood that SCOTUS takes another 2A case to slap down these inferior courts.

Read this thread on X.

I don’t have time to write more, but OMG.  Those jurists in Hawaii are not very smart lunatics.

19 thoughts on “Hawaii’s Supreme Court declares ‘Spirit of Hawaii’ trumps US Constitution, NO right to keep and bear arms”
  1. Actually, this is a very interesting case. The supreme court has dictated that we must look to the history and tradition at the time of the adoption of the second amendment and thereabouts. I’m challenging gun laws in another state which was at various times in history occupied by Indians, French, the english, then colonists and then American citizens and at the time of the adoption of the second amendment, that state was not yet a state.

    So whose law do you look to inlooking for historical analogues? at the time of the adoption of the second amendment, part of that state was actually canada, so this Hawaii case has some very interesting implication for a number of states, because a number of states were occupied by other nations at the time of the founding and even at the time of the adoption of the second amendment.

    there’s a Mexican influence. There’s a Spanish influence. There’s a French influence…. in Alaska, there’s a Russian influence. Many of the boundary/ border states have Canadian influence, which implicates english common law And these are all questions that have yet to be answered.

    Apparently the hawaiians feel quite strongly about their Aboriginal history. And that is what is reflected in this opinion.

    The fact that you don’t understand it is no surprise , but for those who are actually litigating these matters , these are important concerns.

    Inasmuch as hawaii Was actually a Kingdom at the time of the adoption of the American second amendment, then their historical analogues are very important.
    we will see what the supreme court has to say about it ultimately and inevitably. To call them lunatics for following the dictate of the u s supreme court is kind of like calling the beautiful and quite lovely daughter of your political opponent a whore just because you don’t like her father.

    1. “ken” says: “Inasmuch as hawaii Was actually a Kingdom at the time of the adoption of the American second amendment, then their historical analogues are very important.”
      You should have read the court’s statements, “ken”, the Hawai’i Constitution Article 1, Section 17 “mirrors” (aka: is the same as) the United States Constitution, has NOTHING to do with Hawai’i being a “kingdom” at the time of the adaptation of our Second Amendment, moron.
      Hey idiot, have you figured out yet how “addition of fractions” CAN be done? ANYONE but YOU that is, hahahaha, dim-bulb! STILL, laughing my a$$ OFF, HAHAHAHA!

    2. You pathetic old coot!

      Everybody knows you can’t add fractions! It’s like global warming man , there’s no doubt!

    3. Hey “ken”, to paraphrase SNL from years ago “ken, you ignorant slut!” 1/8″ + 1/2″ = 5/8″, basic, simple(ton) math!! you arrogant, narcissistic quisling bass-turd. STILL laughing my well endowed rear end off hahahaha giggle, giggle!!!

    4. Gsl1598, You take that witchcraft somewhere else! Like the hawaii supreme court should take their spirit of aloha somewhere else! Everybody knows you can’t add fractions!!*

      * I wonder how long I can keep him wound up over this.

      So upon re-reading in the opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court, it appears that they spent all of about one page discussing the second amendment. they hung their hat on the fact that, as they claimed, the Hawaiian constitution grants rights superior to those of the US Supreme Court court regarding firearms-or rather, greater than, which sometimes happens. the question they resolved, according to the Hawaii constitution, before reaching the federal constitutional issue, was whether he had standing to challenge the laws he was charged under. the bottom line is since he didn’t even apply for a license to carry and didn’t have a license to carry, he cannot challenge those laws.. That’s a simple question of standing and standing that is resolved under the State’s law. It has nothing to do with the second amendment. They said since he doesn’t have standing under State law, We don’t have to reach the second amendment issue. And then that 1 page discussion of the second amendment was just lip service to what the court actually said in Bruen, that states do still maintain the right to license the carry of firearms.

      Much of their discussion was of 19th and 20th century constitution and gun laws of hawaii, which the u.s. supreme court advises us is irrelevant in the analysis.

      So this one won’t even reach the supreme court.

      It’s based on state law and he didn’t satisfy the state’s requirement for standing.

      The rest of the court’s discussion seemed to involve a misdescription of what the militia are. the militia are you and I. That doesn’t change even though the feds decided to say oh, the militia becomes, by operation of statute, the National Guard. no! Sorry, I’m not part of a National Guard but I am the militia. When the call to arms goes out, I will respond and I will not be regulated by any government. That’s the blessing and virtue of the militia.

      Then the court talks about muskets and ignores every rapid-fire and multiple barreled firearm, that was available in the day and that’s all just gibberish, nonsense, poppycock and balderdash.

      Hopefully the US Supreme Court will Settle these other matters in other cases. But this one won’t get there. Don’t get your undies too much in a bunch!

      Oh and, in a footnote, the hawaii supreme court said you can’t add fractions!

  2. Anyone for sending Hawaii a bill due, payable upon receipt, for all the military defense spending expended on / in / for them during WW II and since? January 24th news reported Russia wants to reclaim Alaska. Let them have Hawaii and Mazie instead and see how their constitution fits in with Russia’s.

  3. “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,”

    the Hawaii Supreme Court decision states. “We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

    Hawaii’s highest court on Wednesday ruled that Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend to Hawaii citizens.
    …. from Fox News article by Thomas Catenacci

    A Leftist State Supreme Court “interprets” “the right to keep and bear arms” does not apply to Hawaii residents/citizens.

    1. As Reagan famously said, “THERE YOU GO AGAIN!” Citing faux news as authoritative sources for ANYTHING is but foolhardy. And if you read the Hawaill opinion, that is NOT what the court said at all. Catenacci, whoever he is, is a dolt. Perhaps he’s a blond and identifies as having big bewbs. That’s why he works for Fox.
      As you, yourself, quote in your post, what the court wrote was “there is NO STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to carry a firearm in public.” NOTHING to do with the 2A.
      And I bet you’re one of the callers to old Hannity and Colmes’s show who said, “Sean, you’re sooooooooooooooo cuuuuuuuuttttttteeeeee.” That gagged me so much I quit watching the show.
      * sorry if I come across as a little testy with the ol’ coot tonight, I’ve been fasting all day. Happy LENT, everyone. I’m giving up adding fractions together!

  4. It does not matter these states were former possessions of other nations. These states are now part of These United States of America. Thus the text, history, and tradition of the founding of These United States of America are the salient point. The holding and dicta of Heller and Breuen apply to Hawaii and ALL U.S Citizens therein. Did the Hawaiian aboriginal history have no freedom of speech, no due process? If so, and Hawaii would like to follow their ‘aloha spirit’ it seems like you Ken are ok with denying U.S. Citizens their God given inalienable rights. You are wrong.

    1. The question is the extent that the states still retain the ability to regulate the keeping and bearing of firearms.
      And that’s all that Hawaii case was about period I’m pro 2a all the way.
      But since the Supreme Court has laid down the rules, we have to follow them.
      And history and tradition of hawaii at the time of the adoption of the second amendment is what the court considered. If part of that is the witchcraft of the aloha spirit or the adding of fractions together,* then that is what is required.

      No , we don’t have to like it , but we have to convince the states that the second amendment really means what it says

      This case will not make it to the supreme court.

      *just for de old coot!

  5. Furthermore if the Hawaiians don’t want to follow the United States United States Constitution and ensure their citizens are given all the rights and protections afforded by the same then Hawaii can go back to being an aboriginal kingdom. No more of my money to these fucking tyrants! The Japanese can have it.

    1. Well, here’s the one thing. United States constitution has not been and probably will not be interpreted as allowing unbridled open carry and that’s what the plaintiff in the hawaii case wanted. He didn’t have a firearms permit. He didn’t have a concealed carry permit. And he hadn’t even applied for one, and that’s why he lacked standing. That’s all this case was about everything else is what they call dicta.

      He had no right to challenge the laws that he was attempting to challenge.

      That does not justify united states supreme court intervention, Even though the second amendment is tangentially involved.

      Just as the supreme court waited for just the right plaintiffs , and just the right cases to enshrine our rights in the books , they will do the same thing now. With the makeup of the court as it is now, we can trust that they will do it right. We just have to give them the time and the right cases. And this guy is not the right case.

  6. Hmmmm. Well said Ken. I don’t give a flying f about the facts in this case. The legal reasoning is flawed, the arrogance and contempt is off the charts. I am only considering these factors in a general sense as to application of law by inferior courts. Though not in the Federal system the Hawiian supreme court is inferior to the USSC. The courts (Hawaii) contempt for citizens rights as US Citizens is my concern. Sic Semper Tyrranis.

  7. Let’s follow “Hawai’i” logic here. Could it be argued that Mississippi’s culture and tradition means that blacks are subhuman and have no right to bear arms? Absurd, I get it. What this foolishness means is there are a lot of amendments to the Constitution that could potentially be ignored.

  8. Update Ken….
    William Kirk disagrees with your legal assessment as do the plaintiffs seeking cert from the USSC in one of the IL cases. In fact, in THAT application for cert the plaintiff’s attorneys specifically cited the Hawaii decision as an example of incompetent legal reasoning and the big F’u to the USSC.

    1. No, he doesn’t. Kirk simply neglects to note or mention that in every instance he QUOTES from the opinion on his video, that it was DICTA. NOT essential to the decision. Extraneous language. WORDS MENTIONED ONLY IN PASSING. I.e., NOT APPEALABLE.

      I’m not defending what the Hawaii supreme court did; it’s some of the biggest legal CRAP I’ve read in about fifty years. BUt all in all, it affects us nohow. He lost. Now he can apply for the requisite permits and carry, if he wants to.

      Watch that video again. In every quote there’s an “under the Hawaii STATE CONSTITUTION” or similar language. They may be cuckoo, but they were very smart about that. And GSL’s petition for cert also ignored that. The only discussion on the Second Amendment that was “essential to” the decision was in what I’ll call PART III of the opinion on pp52-53, which EXPLICITLY dealt with the Second Amendment claims. And all they said in regard to that was, “hey, even the supremes acknowledge that guns that may be kept and borne are still subject to reasonable regulation,” like pistol-purchase permits, and licenses to carry, NEITHER of which the defendant had in that case. I don’t think the supreme court is stupid enough to MISS that. However, it may sway them. If they took the case, and they’re not going to take the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *