• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Hawaii Supreme Court tells US Supreme Court to shove it on gun rights

Hercules56

Penultimate Amazing
Hercules56
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
11,395
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-laws-criticizes-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.

This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-laws-criticizes-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.

Hercules56 said:
This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
 
ZiprHead said:
Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Hercules is using it as a figure of speech, here.



: rolleyes :

It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
Click to expand...
The only thing* more idiotic than the Heller decision is saying a state court is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.
 
ZiprHead said:
Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.



:rolleyes:

It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...court-gun-laws-ruling-aloha-spirit-wire-quote

"The spirit of aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” added Justice Todd Eddins in an opinion. “The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

There you go.

Aloha Spirit trumps the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Pretty sure Hercules is using it as a figure of speech, here.




The only thing* more idiotic than the Heller decision is saying a state court is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
 
My guess is that Hawaii is looking to push the case up the the U.S. Supreme Court to get a more precise definition of what the Supremes think may be allowed.

Note that the guy was not charged with having a gun, he was only charged with having an unlicensed gun.

It looks like Hawaii requires that all guns be licensed (with exceptions for some shotguns and black powder/muzzle loaders). There are no requirements for what purpose one needs a gun for, although you must take a hunter/gun safety class first. If you want a gun, you can get one, so long as you register it and take the safety class.

In other words, the licensing requirement is probably complaint with the Heller decision, the laws in Hawaii are considerably more lenient than the laws in D.C. that were overturned by the Heller decision.

The Hawaii Supremes are not defying Heller they are instead saying that Heller is a stupid decision but that their laws appear to be compliant with it anyway.

I expect the right-wind media to ignore that last bit and froth and moan over this ad nauseum because they make good ratings with gullible patsies that way.
 
Hercules56 said:
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
Click to expand...

The decision in Heller is being challenged, not ignored. The proper way to challenge a Supreme Court ruling is to raise a similar issue from lower level courts. Keep in mind that almost every Court decision overturns a previous one as the result of a challenge on a similar issue. Before Dobbs, Roe was law. Before Heller, Robertson was law. If you're going to argue that Supreme Court decisions are final and sacrosanct, you have to be specific about which ones.

Heller allows that states may impose "reasonable restrictions" on the possession of firearms within the broad allowance of personal possession. Explain how we cannot use the courts to define the contours of that allowance.
 
I remember there were a couple handbill-tossers advertising gun ranges right there in Waikiki. They seemed to be pretty popular with Japanese people (of which there are many, many in Hawaii.)
 
Hercules56 said:
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
Click to expand...
And yet, SCOTUS has brought it upon themselves with their alt-right decisions that are out of the norm. Trump-McConnell-Federalist Society court packing is so extreme it was only a matter of time before states said they could no longer abide by SCOTUS' destructive rulings.

Can you blame HI for saying **** this, people walking around with AR15s or similar weapons slung over their shoulders is unacceptable? How is anyone to feel safe not knowing if one of these idiots might decide to start shooting people?

Yes the charge was no permit this time but in the ruling as was quoted above:
“The spirit of aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” added Justice Todd Eddins in an opinion. “The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”
Click to expand...

Enough is enough, SCOTUS is no longer a respected branch of government.
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
I remember there were a couple handbill-tossers advertising gun ranges right there in Waikiki. They seemed to be pretty popular with Japanese people (of which there are many, many in Hawaii.)
Click to expand...
It has been a long time since I went there, but the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club appears to be an operation set up to fleece tourists.

I was walking around Waikiki when I saw a poster and went in to take a look. It had short shooting lanes set up with small 22lr revolvers chained to the bench. Cost was about $1 per round. This was back when 22lr ammo cost 3 cents per cartridge.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And yet, SCOTUS has brought it upon themselves with their alt-right decisions that are out of the norm. Trump-McConnell-Federalist Society court packing is so extreme it was only a matter of time before states said they could no longer abide by SCOTUS' destructive rulings.

Can you blame HI for saying **** this, people walking around with AR15s or similar weapons slung over their shoulders is unacceptable? How is anyone to feel safe not knowing if one of these idiots might decide to start shooting people?

Yes the charge was no permit this time but in the ruling as was quoted above:


Enough is enough, SCOTUS is no longer a respected branch of government.
Click to expand...

So which SCOTUS decisions do you think should be ignored?
 
JayUtah said:
I think the Supreme Court should be ignored when it rules to permit federal border guards to remove barriers set up by Texas officials. Oh, wait, that wasn't me; that was the Attorney General of Texas.
Click to expand...

Another dangerous precedent, but less so than when a state supreme court literally says in their ruling "we dont care what the US Supreme Court says".

I hope this decision by the Hawaii supreme court is appealed, EVEN though I totally support the right of states to require permits for concealed carry, and I think so does the current US Supreme Court. Bruen never threw out permits, only the "good cause" requirement.
 
Last edited:
Hawaii had a kind of interesting take on the scope of state/federal authority when I visited. There was this whole subculture there that did things like made its own license plates and put them on cars and drove them around. Police kind of...left them alone. The details are momentarily escaping me but the colors were I think yellow, orange, and green, and had a set of crossed flags. I'll look it up later.

Anyway, they seem to very much support the idea of traditional Hawaiian culture trumping the USA's rules. Also, from memory, they weren't actually big on "aloha". They said that was more of a tourist thing. Maholo was actually a bigger deal, and they even had that on their orange road work signs.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Another dangerous precedent, but less so than when a state supreme court literally says in their ruling "we dont care what the US Supreme Court says".

I hope this decision by the Hawaii supreme court is appealed...
Click to expand...

So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?

Appealing decisions of state courts on federal questions that challenge existing Supreme Court rulings is exactly how the system was designed to operate. It's literally how you got Heller and literally how you got Dobbs.

Wow.
 
JayUtah said:
So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?

Appealing decisions of state courts on federal questions that challenge existing Supreme Court rulings is exactly how the system was designed to operate. It's literally how you got Heller and literally how you got Dobbs.

Wow.
Click to expand...

Saying "we will not abide by a very recent SCOTUS ruling because it conflicts with our local values & heritage" is what's dangerous.
 
Hercules56 said:
Saying "we will not abide by a very recent SCOTUS ruling because it conflicts with our local values & heritage" is what's dangerous.
Click to expand...

In your view.

If the means by which they express that satisfaction is to hear and decide a case in court, following due process, in a manner that is reviewable and appealable to the Supreme Court, then that's how the system is designed to work. The sentence is mere rhetoric.

But you say that's less acceptable than the Texas attorney general just up and deciding on his own to disobey the Court ruling, having no authority to do so under the Constitution and following no due process.

Make it make sense.
 
JayUtah said:
In your view.

If the means by which they express that satisfaction is to hear and decide a case in court, following due process, in a manner that is reviewable and appealable to the Supreme Court, then that's how the system is designed to work. The sentence is mere rhetoric.

But you say that's less acceptable than the Texas attorney general just up and deciding on his own to disobey the Court ruling, having no authority to do so under the Constitution and following no due process.

Make it make sense.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're saying as long as a rejection of a SCOTUS ruling is done through the judicial process, its ok?

What if immediately after Roe v Wade decision was handed down, Texas said "**** that, we aren't going to allow abortions", and the Texas Supreme Court agreed that Texas doesn't have to allow abortions and the US Supreme Court can go **** themselves and their unChristian values?
 
Hercules56 said:
OK, so you're saying as long as a rejection of a SCOTUS ruling is done through the judicial process, its ok?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's how the judiciary works. That's how it was designed to work.

What if immediately after Roe v Wade decision was handed down, Texas said...
Click to expand...

What they say is irrelevant. What they do matters.

What Hawaii did was mount a challenge to a Supreme Court case they felt disagreed with their state's values. They did so in the manner prescribed in the Constitution. That this action is accompanied by rhetoric you see as inflammatory is irrelevant.

In contrast, what the attorney general of Texas did was flagrantly disobey a standing ruling from the Supreme Court. His office does not give him the authority to do so, and his actions under color of law are not according to any process and are not reviewable.

But you say what Texas is doing is less dangerous. Explain how.
 
JayUtah said:
So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?
Click to expand...

Texas did not disobey the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court simply vacated an injunction that stopped the feds from cutting wire put up by Texas. The order didn't stop Texas from putting up new wire.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes. That's how the judiciary works. That's how it was designed to work.
Click to expand...

No. That's not how it works. The lower / state court is bound by the federal precedent. To challenge the law you appeal that decision on up. Otherwise, precedent does not exist. Often, if a court feels that the precedent is bad, it will say so in its opinion but nonetheless acknowledge that it is bound.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
No. That's not how it works. The lower / state court is bound by the federal precedent. To challenge the law you appeal that decision on up. Otherwise, precedent does not exist. Often, if a court feels that the precedent is bad, it will say so in its opinion but nonetheless acknowledge that it is bound.
Click to expand...

Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was. Their case is curious because they're looking at their state constitution, whose section on firearms is verbatim the 2nd Amendment. They argue they have an unfettered right to interpret their state constitution.

ETA: If you look at the history of gun control legislation, controlling precedent prior to Heller was U.S. v. Miller (1939). In Miller, the Court ruled decisively that firearm possession was governed by the principles of a militia (i.e., the collective-rights model), and that no individual right to own a gun existed outside that context. The appeals court in Heller flatly ruled that an individual right to own a gun existed, arguing straight across the bow of Miller. The Supreme Court affirmed, but the point remained that a lower court advanced the argument that the Supreme Court previously had erred as a matter of law.

In contrast, Dobbs was a more straightforward path. The Mississippi court followed precedent and struck down the state law as unconstitutional under Roe and Casey. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, also following precedent.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
Texas did not disobey the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court simply vacated an injunction that stopped the feds from cutting wire put up by Texas. The order didn't stop Texas from putting up new wire.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that's a more accurate picture of the facts. But in my opinion it's a formulaic argument that doesn't really address the notion of defiance or obedience to the Supreme Court. If the argument is presented that it is dangerous (other than legally) to defy the Court, then a formulaic obedience to the letter of the Court's decision while continuing to defy its spirit makes that argument less convincing to me.
 
JayUtah said:
Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll agree with that. The facts of the case are that the guy had a concealed gun and didn't bother to get a permit. So he couldn't challenge the constitutionality of the permit process. He was stuck arguing that the Hawaii state and federal constitutions gave him a right to have a gun in public. Supreme Court precedent still allows states to require a permit. So, ugh. And it is certainly proper for a state supreme court to interpret its state's constitution.
 
Trausti said:
And it is certainly proper for a state supreme court to interpret its state's constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we'll have to see how this survives an application of the Supremacy Clause. It is worth emphasizing, however, that your statement on precedent is correct. When the Supreme Court has ruled on a federal question, all state courts must respect that as binding precedent when ruling on the same question.
 
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-laws-criticizes-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.

This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.
Click to expand...

No what was unprecedented and dangerous was the Heller decision of "the constitution does not mean what it says it means".
 
Hans said:
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
Click to expand...

Here's the decision.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf

Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, it's sheer poetry. Consider :—
The Second Amendment quelled alarm that the national government might disarm and disband state militias. Those militias could “oppose” a federal army, Madison wrote, and “would be able to repel the danger” of the federal government.

That’s what they were thinking about long ago. Not someone packing a musket to the wigmaker just in case.
Click to expand...
But to get back to your point, there is quite a spirit in the opinion. I think I understand better what you're trying to say, for having read it.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
No what was unprecedented and dangerous was the Heller decision of "the constitution does not mean what it says it means".
Click to expand...

This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.

Americans have the Constitutional right to defend their home and themselves in public using deadly force, including with a firearm.
 
Hans said:
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
Click to expand...

*indigenous peoples on the mainland make frantic warning hand gestures to Hans to stop it*
 
Hercules56 said:
This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.
Click to expand...

It is about Heller because Heller is the decision you demand everyone must obey. Heller overturned 75 years of precedent and told an entire country worth of federal judges that they had been interpreting the clear language of Miller wrong all along.

Why don't you read the decision I linked above, which points out the legal and historical errors in Heller reasoning and tell me why that is wrong. And no, "Because it contradicts Heller" is not why.
 
Hercules56 said:
This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.

Americans have the Constitutional right to defend their home and themselves in public using deadly force, including with a firearm.
Click to expand...

It's not correct because the constitution never imputed an unfettered right to own weapons of any kind. It gave a conditional right for citizens to have arms on their persons (bear arms) when carrying out their duties as part of the state or national armed forces (well regulated militia). The Heller ruling flies in the face of the clearly enunciated clauses in the second amendment no matter how loosely you interpret the wording.
 
JayUtah said:
It is about Heller because Heller is the decision you demand everyone must obey. Heller overturned 75 years of precedent and told an entire country worth of federal judges that they had been interpreting the clear language of Miller wrong all along.

Why don't you read the decision I linked above, which points out the legal and historical errors in Heller reasoning and tell me why that is wrong. And no, "Because it contradicts Heller" is not why.
Click to expand...

I have read more than enough background into the Heller decision and the 2nd Amendment to understand why it was correct to decide what they did.

Some regulations and restrictions are legal, such as requiring permits, training, background checks, banning in court houses and schools. But blanket bans on possessing a gun at home for self defense and possessing concealed handguns in public goes against the clear historical intent of the 2A.

The Wikipedia article on the Heller decision gets into a lot of this.
 
JayUtah said:
Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was. Their case is curious because they're looking at their state constitution, whose section on firearms is verbatim the 2nd Amendment. They argue they have an unfettered right to interpret their state constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out this Hawaiian loophole. If the Supreme Court rules that the the US constitution prohibits certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, how can it possibly matter whether a state court interprets their state's constitution to permit those restrictions? They're still bound by the US Constitution (as interpreted by Supreme Court rulings) to not impose those restrictions.
 
theprestige said:
I'm trying to figure out this Hawaiian loophole. If the Supreme Court rules that the the US constitution prohibits certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, how can it possibly matter whether a state court interprets their state's constitution to permit those restrictions? They're still bound by the US Constitution (as interpreted by Supreme Court rulings) to not impose those restrictions.
Click to expand...

Hawaii is clearly special, and not bound by white man rules.


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom