Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Lawless Leftists Violate Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawless Leftists Violate Constitution

    Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

    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, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

    In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...cond-amendment
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    USA conspired to overthrow the Hawaiian government and annexed the islands. Kinda feel like they should get a couple of constitutional waivers outta that deal.

    -Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      USA conspired to overthrow the Hawaiian government and annexed the islands. Kinda feel like they should get a couple of constitutional waivers outta that deal.

      -Sam
      So, suddenly Sam is in favor of violating the constitution....imagine that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        So, suddenly Sam is in favor of violating the constitution....imagine that.
        Not a fan of the dry humor, I take it. Well, don't mind me.

        -Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sam View Post

          Not a fan of the dry humor, I take it. Well, don't mind me.

          -Sam
          Well, you've shown yourself to be a post-hoc rationalizer, so I have no problem taking you at face value rationalizing a decision like this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

            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, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

            In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...cond-amendment
            It's strange to see Democrats arguing FOR states rights when they favor federal power. Much like with Graham, they favour it when it suits there prerogatives.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

              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, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

              In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...cond-amendment
              The article requires one to sign up before reading it, so I can't really look at much more than you quoted. I'm therefore not sure if it linked to the opinion itself (news sites have a very irritating tendency to write articles about court decisions they never link to), but it can be found here:
              https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...2024hawaii.pdf

              Anyway, being unable to read the article I don't know exactly what it says, but the headline of "Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment" as well as the opening statement of "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, citing the "spirit of Aloha."" is inaccurate. It never says the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court doesn't apply to Hawaii. It rather argues the law in question neither contradicts the Hawaiian Constitution nor the Second Amendment (under Supreme Court precedent). However, it does so in a really, really weird way.

              First, let's talk the Second Amendment. The discussion of the Second Amendment is actually very, very short in the opinion. Essentially, it asserts that under Bruen (that gun rights decision from 2022), the laws in question are still constitutional. So it's not saying the Second Amendment doesn't apply, it rather says that even under the standard of Bruen, it's constitutional, though it spends only two (double-spaced) pages arguing that, and its argument really is just "Bruen said there can be restrictions, and these restrictions are okay!" while providing little analysis. I'm now going to quote the entirety of its Second Amendment analysis section, which runs from pages 52 to 53:

              We also hold that HRS 134-25(a) and 134-27(a) do not violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. “[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [T]he right [is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. States retain the authority to require that individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public. Id. at 79-80 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[T]he Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self- defense.”); Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271, 312 (2d Cir. 2023) (“Licensing that includes discretion that is bounded by defined standards, we conclude, is part of this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation and therefore in compliance with the Second Amendment.”).

              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. Because he has no standing, Wilson’s constitutional challenge to HRS 134-9, Hawaiʻi’s licensing law, fails. See supra section III.A.2.


              Again, that is the entirety of their Second Amendment analysis section; one would think it should require a little more than that.

              Now, you might be wondering, if that's on pages 51-52 out of 53 pages, what in the world was the prior 50 pages about? Well, some at the start was giving the history of the case and stuff like that, but from pages 19-50 it talks about whether the law runs afoul of the Hawaiian Constitution, more specifically Article I Section 17, which is (aside from different punctuation and capitalization) identical to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Hawaiian Supreme Court essentially argues that the Hawaiian Constitution does not confer an individual right to bear arms, asserting that even if the original public meaning of the Second Amendment granted such a right, at the time this was put into the Hawaiian constitution the more popular understanding of the Second Amendment was in not granting an individual right. It puts forward a not unreasonable argument that this is the case, that despite identical verbiage, the original public meaning of the Hawaiian Constitution definitely didn't confer an individual right even if the Second Amendment did. It is under this context that the rather goofy-sounding "spirit of Aloha" is used, in reference to the Hawaiian Constitution.

              The issue is, why do this lengthy analysis at all? Even if the Hawaiian Constitution doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms and therefore allows for more gun control than the Second Amendment under current Supreme Court precedent, that just means that all that matters is the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision (as well as District of Columbia v. Heller, sort of Bruen's predecessor). This whole thing is unnecessary unless the argument was that the Hawaiian Constitution conferred a more stringent individual right than the US Constitution, which it isn't doing.

              But reading the opinion explains why they did all that: The person who wrote this opinion really, really, really wanted an excuse to rant about how they think Heller and especially Bruen were wrongly decided (it also tosses in an entirely unnecessary brief rant about Dobbs). Sure, it spends some time talking about the circumstances of the Hawaiian Constitution, but it sure finds plenty of time to talk about how the Second Amendment doesn't grant an individual right and how the Supreme Court was wrong to say it did. It legitimately feels like their thought process was "I want to write a dissent to Bruen, but I'm not on the Supreme Court so I can't, so I'm going to take this opportunity to do so!"

              But as much as the opinion just reads like the author wanted to complain about Bruen, at the end of the day it never actually says the Second Amendment doesn't apply to Hawaii, it simply asserts that under Bruen the law isn't still isn't unconstitutional (while using the opinion as an excuse to essentially get a Bruen dissent published). Now, perhaps someone wants to say Bruen does outlaw it. If so, fine, but again the opinion doesn't say Bruen prohibits the law or that Bruen doesn't apply to Hawaii.
              Last edited by Terraceth; 02-08-2024, 09:02 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                A more tl;dr version of my previous post, in case it was a bit long: The Hawaiian Supreme Court did not say the Second Amendment or the US Supreme Court's jurispudence on it doesn't apply to Hawaii, or that it doesn't due to any "spirit of Aloha". It rather says that the laws being challenged question are constitutional by the standards of the US Supreme Court, even if it is is a surprisingly short analysis. However, it spends a lot of time arguing that the Hawaiian Constitution conveys no right to bear arms (this is where that whole "spirit of Aloha" thing came in) and uses this as an excuse to complain about the US Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment, going so far as to explicitly declare "Bruen, McDonald, Heller, and other cases show how the Court handpicks history to make its own rules." Weirdly, it also includes a very brief but rather out-of-nowhere attack on the Dobbs decision too. It really feels like the author was annoyed they weren't on the Supreme Court to write a dissent for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and just figured this was an opportunity to do it.

                It's a weird decision, but let's not make up information about what it said.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  The article requires one to sign up before reading it, so I can't really look at much more than you quoted. I'm therefore not sure if it linked to the opinion itself (news sites have a very irritating tendency to write articles about court decisions they never link to), but it can be found here:
                  https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...2024hawaii.pdf

                  Anyway, being unable to read the article I don't know exactly what it says, but the headline of "Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment" as well as the opening statement of "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, citing the "spirit of Aloha."" is inaccurate. It never says the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court doesn't apply to Hawaii. It rather argues the law in question neither contradicts the Hawaiian Constitution nor the Second Amendment (under Supreme Court precedent). However, it does so in a really, really weird way.

                  First, let's talk the Second Amendment. The discussion of the Second Amendment is actually very, very short in the opinion. Essentially, it asserts that under Bruen (that gun rights decision from 2022), the laws in question are still constitutional. So it's not saying the Second Amendment doesn't apply, it rather says that even under the standard of Bruen, it's constitutional, though it spends only two (double-spaced) pages arguing that, and its argument really is just "Bruen said there can be restrictions, and these restrictions are okay!" while providing little analysis. I'm now going to quote the entirety of its Second Amendment analysis section, which runs from pages 52 to 53:

                  We also hold that HRS 134-25(a) and 134-27(a) do not violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. “[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [T]he right [is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. States retain the authority to require that individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public. Id. at 79-80 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[T]he Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self- defense.”); Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271, 312 (2d Cir. 2023) (“Licensing that includes discretion that is bounded by defined standards, we conclude, is part of this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation and therefore in compliance with the Second Amendment.”).

                  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. Because he has no standing, Wilson’s constitutional challenge to HRS 134-9, Hawaiʻi’s licensing law, fails. See supra section III.A.2.


                  Again, that is the entirety of their Second Amendment analysis section; one would think it should require a little more than that.

                  Now, you might be wondering, if that's on pages 51-52 out of 53 pages, what in the world was the prior 50 pages about? Well, some at the start was giving the history of the case and stuff like that, but from pages 19-50 it talks about whether the law runs afoul of the Hawaiian Constitution, more specifically Article I Section 17, which is (aside from different punctuation and capitalization) identical to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Hawaiian Supreme Court essentially argues that the Hawaiian Constitution does not confer an individual right to bear arms, asserting that even if the original public meaning of the Second Amendment granted such a right, at the time this was put into the Hawaiian constitution the more popular understanding of the Second Amendment was in not granting an individual right. It puts forward a not unreasonable argument that this is the case, that despite identical verbiage, the original public meaning of the Hawaiian Constitution definitely didn't confer an individual right even if the Second Amendment did. It is under this context that the rather goofy-sounding "spirit of Aloha" is used, in reference to the Hawaiian Constitution.

                  The issue is, why do this lengthy analysis at all? Even if the Hawaiian Constitution doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms and therefore allows for more gun control than the Second Amendment under current Supreme Court precedent, that just means that all that matters is the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision (as well as District of Columbia v. Heller, sort of Bruen's predecessor). This whole thing is unnecessary unless the argument was that the Hawaiian Constitution conferred a more stringent individual right than the US Constitution, which it isn't doing.

                  But reading the opinion explains why they did all that: The person who wrote this opinion really, really, really wanted an excuse to rant about how they think Heller and especially Bruen were wrongly decided (it also tosses in an entirely unnecessary brief rant about Dobbs). Sure, it spends some time talking about the circumstances of the Hawaiian Constitution, but it sure finds plenty of time to talk about how the Second Amendment doesn't grant an individual right and how the Supreme Court was wrong to say it did. It legitimately feels like their thought process was "I want to write a dissent to Bruen, but I'm not on the Supreme Court so I can't, so I'm going to take this opportunity to do so!"

                  But as much as the opinion just reads like the author wanted to complain about Bruen, at the end of the day it never actually says the Second Amendment doesn't apply to Hawaii, it simply asserts that under Bruen the law isn't still isn't unconstitutional (while using the opinion as an excuse to essentially get a Bruen dissent published). Now, perhaps someone wants to say Bruen does outlaw it. If so, fine, but again the opinion doesn't say Bruen prohibits the law or that Bruen doesn't apply to Hawaii.
                  Good analysis; many thanks!

                  -Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 06:47 AM
                  1 response
                  4 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Mountain Man  
                  Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
                  44 responses
                  259 views
                  2 likes
                  Last Post seer
                  by seer
                   
                  Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
                  11 responses
                  87 views
                  2 likes
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by carpedm9587, 04-13-2024, 07:51 PM
                  31 responses
                  180 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Juvenal, 04-13-2024, 04:39 PM
                  42 responses
                  329 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Starlight  
                  Working...
                  X