Is this the start of a Cold Civil War

[guyfriday]

From: Fox News

Hawaii's highest court ruled Wednesday 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."

"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."

 
This war isn't brother against brother, but instead is being pushed as states rights verses citizens rights (wait wasn't the other civil war about that similar... never mind). The point being that instead of outright blood shed, we are seeing the political elites trying to use the law against the public in a very open and unConstitutional way, even going so far as to say that what is written isn't what something says. As they put it:

"The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities," it adds. "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."

Point is now with this ruling, I wonder if anything the SCOTUS says will be held as "Law of the Land" given that each land can just do whatever they want regardless of what the people there say? Further in the article,

In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes a quote from HBO's "The Wire," that "the thing about the old days, they the old days." The court's opinion states that it "makes no sense" for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to "the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution."

The case dates to December 2017, when Hawaii citizen Christopher Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm Wilson was arrested carrying was unregistered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. He told police officers that the firearm was purchased in 2013 in Florida.

Wilson argued in court that the charges brought against him violated the Second Amendment. But, according to The Reload, the Hawaii high court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which both held that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms.

Even though this is just a 2A story, we must not forget that if you pull a thread, the sweater as a whole falls apart, and Hawaii is pulling of the Constitution here. I mean if Hawaii wants to act like a US Territory, or even worse a fully independent nation, then we can just treat it like Puerto Rico whenever a disaster happens, or hand it over to China (since we can harbor a guess at who would be aiming for it if they went full Independent State). 

I wonder if this ruling by the Hawaiian SC goes unchecked, then how long will it be before other states start taking the same stance of SCOTUS rulings?

[FlyersFan]

The US Constitution has higher authority than their 'spirit of Aloha'. 
I'm all for states rights.
But they can't go against the US Constitution.

[argentus]

There is a process for amending/changing the Constitution.    It is clear, and has been itself amended a time or two. As it currently stands, it is this:  Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

Otherwise, The U.S. Constitution applies to ALL of the United States, until further notice, or legal amendment.  

That is all.

[guyfriday]

Both of you bring up the bases for me concern. What's to prevent a state from shutting down other Constitutional rights. Maybe California sees it fitting to house National Guardsmen in your house due to the possibility of a forest fire, or a whistleblower gets denied 5A rights of self protection from incrimination, then you have the possibility of a state to deny voting rights to individuals for the purposes of an election. 

Hawaii opened a jar of flies here that they don't or can't see the final outcome of. Oddly, if the full outcome Hawaii is seeking is for full Independent Statehood separate from the US, then all those Democrat reps in Congress will have to go home and their votes are worthless. Then we have the China issue if Hawaii goes Independent. Will the US care about Hawaii if China moves in militarily to take control of the islands? (of course, we do since it would be viewed as a strategic location, but will we have to take actions)

This move is just bad, hopefully the SC of Hawaii will see it's way out and fix this statement of theirs.

[Byrd]

While there is a constitutional right to own arms, it's pretty clear that the founders didn't want guns in the hands of everyone (slaves, for instance) because local ordinances at the time weren't challenged, and even more than a century later, laws banning guns in town weren't challenged either (in many Western towns you had to surrender your guns to the sheriff if you were in town.)

State laws determine who gets to own what and what the process is for carrying firearms.  Every single one of the states has different laws.

So Hawaii hasn't broken the Constitution, nor is this an excuse to start a(n) (un)civil war, though you might decide to not ever travel to that state.

You might (or might not) enjoy this article about early gun laws: https://theconversation.com/five-types-o...oved-85364


For the purpose of conversation, let me highlight a few sentences:

• (gun registration) The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons  required for militia service.
  
• (ban on traveling with weapons - dates to before the founding of the US and was kept in place and legal after the Constitution) In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. (snip) Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.
  
• (safe storage of registered arms) In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city.
  

And there were some ridiculously (to our modern minds) restrictive laws.  To wit: 

• The earliest gun regulations targeted specific individuals, aiming to restrict dangerous persons from owning firearms. These regulations also involved discrimination based on religious, racial and political reasons.
  
• In 1756, Maryland introduced a law that restricted Catholics from owning guns. The law ordered the confiscation of “all Arms Gunpowder and Ammunition of what kind soever any Papist or reputed Papist within this Providence hath or shall have in his House or Houses.” (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/hi...centuries/)
  

And...

• in 1838, Virginia passed legislation explicitly prohibiting the carrying of certain concealed weapons such as pistols, dirks, Bowie knives and other similar arms that could be “hidden or concealed from common observations.” The law imposed penalties on offenders, including fines ranging from $50 to $500 or imprisonment for up to six months.
  

(from part 2 of that article)

So, you see, a bit of research does back up Hawaii's law.

[guyfriday]

The issue I see here isn't one of 2A so I won't just into a pro/anti gun rights argument here. What I am seeing as the major issue here is how the Hawaiian SC decided that the SCOTUS doesn't reflect how Hawaiians should live and therefore SCOTUS rulings that they don't like don't apply to Hawaiian citizens as a whole. 

This case was over a gun issue, but let's say that it was over a free speech issue, or a housing of national guardsmen's, or even as I stated above a voting issue. How would the issue of only allowing native Hawaiians the ability to vote in any election sound to other Americans living there? 

As you can see the issue isn't a gun issue, it's a Constitutional issue. If the SCOTUS rulings can be tossed in favor of local home rule, then what is the fabric that holds the nation together? Common laws and social mores are what makes a country a complete entity. When one piece starts to defer from the mores of society and ignores the laws of the land, then what do we have?

[pianopraze]

Hawaii is wrong to interpret 2A gun law for their state?

Then is Missouri wrong to interpret for their state?

apples, apples.


Would be interesting to hear both sides arguments.  

My small l libertarian side: they have no right to regulate any of it.

[CoyoteAngels]

People approach these states rights ideas from the wrong POV.  The Constitution places limits on both federal and state governments in the bill of rights.  Its not a cold civil war, its a lawsuit waiting to happen.  

The move toward civil war that we should worry about is different state's national guards going to Texas to stand on opposite sides.  

Yeah, I said it.  Americans standing against Americans because a senile old buzzard is being propped up, and Kampala is incompetent to start with.  and likely scared out of her mind. .

[guyfriday]

Frist I want to post this as it is the ruling on the Case in question (its a PDF):
SCAP-22-0000561.pdf (state.hi.us)

From which the following is taken:
Page 13 of PDF on the Case.

 When the two contain look-alike provisions, Hawaiʻi has chosen not to lockstep with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal constitution. Rather, this court frequently walks another way. Long ago, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an “opinion of the United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”

So, the Highest Court in the land is just an opinion that can be tossed aside?

then there was this:

 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.

Lets see the full quote.
From: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 (yale.edu)

 In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

Not so much a misquote by the court as it is a misuse by them.

And this tid-bit:
Page 50 and 51 from the PDF on the Case.

 No doubt. Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition excludes an individual right to possess weapons. Hawaiʻi prohibited the public carry of lethal weapons – with no exceptions for licensed weapons – from 1833-1896. Unlicensed public carry of firearms has been illegal from 1896 to the present. Hawaiʻi has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a Kingdom, Republic, Territory, or State. e.

The Aloha Spirit In Hawaiʻi,
the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutional interpretation. See Sunoco, 153 Hawaiʻi at 363, 537 P.3d at 1210 (Eddins, J., concurring). When this court exercises “power on behalf of the people and in fulfillment of [our] responsibilities, obligations, and service to the people” we “may contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the ‘Aloha Spirit.’” HRS § 5-7.5(b) (2009). The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.

In the PDF is a list of Hawaiian laws from the mid to late 1800s. These laws are not really workable in todays society, nor would they work in theory. 
Look here is what HRS § 5-7.5(b) (2009) capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0005/HRS_0005-0007_0005.htm

  [§5-7.5]  "Aloha Spirit".  (a)  "Aloha Spirit" is the coordination of mind and heart within each person.  It brings each person to the self.  Each person must think and emote good feelings to others.  In the contemplation and presence of the life force, "Aloha", the following unuhi laula loa may be used:
     "Akahai", meaning kindness to be expressed with tenderness;
     "Lokahi", meaning unity, to be expressed with harmony;
     "Oluolu", meaning agreeable, to be expressed with pleasantness;
     "Haahaa", meaning humility, to be expressed with modesty;
     "Ahonui", meaning patience, to be expressed with perseverance.
     These are traits of character that express the charm, warmth and sincerity of Hawaii's people.  It was the working philosophy of native Hawaiians and was presented as a gift to the people of Hawaii.  "Aloha" is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation.  "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return.  "Aloha" is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.  "Aloha" means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.
     (b)  In exercising their power on behalf of the people and in fulfillment of their responsibilities, obligations and service to the people, the legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, executive officers of each department, the chief justice, associate justices, and judges of the appellate, circuit, and district courts may contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the "Aloha Spirit". [L 1986, c 202, §1]

Now it's great and all that "charm, warmth, and sincerity" is to be considered in the course of a court ruling, but it's about as functional as saying that "Feelz" are more important than fact. Now as I stated many times now, this isn't just a case about gun rights. What is to stop the Hawaiian officials from expressing that only Native Hawaiians can vote in elections, or enjoy freedom from housing local soldiers? Under Traditional Hawaiian laws (as stated in the Cases PDF page 45)

 The only people allowed to carry arms were Kingdom officials and military officers, but only “when worn for legitimate purposes.”

Sounds like Martial Law would allow for mandatory housing of Soldiers to me. 

There is more at stake here than just a gun law, this ruling opens the door to complete dissolution of the American Republic. If other states start following this example, America is as good as gone.