Rogue Hawaii Supreme Court defies the United States Supreme Court, ignores Bruen, Heller decisions in gun case

HONOLULU, Hawaii- Taking a cue from the “elderly man with a poor memory,” the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision last week that violates the Second Amendment for that state’s residents, claiming guns interfere with the “Spirit of Aloha,” whatever that means, according to The Federalist—the ruling defies the Supreme Court of the United States and the Second Amendment.

In a decision roundly hailed by pro-2A advocates and assailed by gun grabbers, the high court in a 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ruled that US citizens need not demonstrate a “special need” as required by New York State law to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That ruling set the left off but affirmed those who believe the Second Amendment allows no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. 

Before that ruling, the court in the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, found that Washington, D.C. overstepped its authority by banning handgun possession in the home, ruling that the Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Those two rulings, however, were rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court when they upheld the conviction of a state resident, Christopher Wilson, who was charged in 2017 with carrying a loaded handgun without a concealed weapons permit. 

In rejecting the ruling in Bruen, the court said that since Wilson wasn’t “a well-regulated militia” and did not apply for a concealed carry weapons permit, the US Supreme Court's decision was inapplicable. They said that under the 1968 interpretation of that state’s 1950 constitution, “the historical background of the Second Amendment indicates that the central concern in the right to bear arms was the right of the states to maintain a militia.” 

“When the Hawai’i Constitution was first ratified, courts throughout the nation’s history had always interpreted and applied the Second Amendment with the militia-centric view,” the court wrote. “This was what everyone thought.” 

This interpretation is, of course, absurd. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Founders “understood that large standing armies were dangerous threats to liberty, especially when controlled by authoritarian governments who sought to disarm the general population.” Clearly, with colonial Americans having just broken the bonds from a tyrannical king, it is a fool’s errand to believe the term “militia,” as written in the Second Amendment, referred to a government-run army of citizens. 

The term militia had its roots in English history and common law and was defined as a means for citizens to defend themselves against all threats, foreign and domestic. The belief was that a nation “could when needed, call upon the greater body of armed citizens to employ their personal firearms in the collective defense of the state or nation.” 

The term “well regulated” is also used by anti-gun zealots to insinuate that the term means regulated by the state (or federal government). That also is incorrect. Heritage said that term meant “the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official services should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.” 

What applied in 1791–when the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution–still applies today. 

 That is what the Supreme Court has affirmed. The high court has repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individual rights to possess arms and doesn’t include a military component. 

The court’s ruling is also absurd because in the case of Wilson, had he started the permit application process, it would likely have languished in the approval process. Hawaii police chiefs in charge of issuing concealed carry permits only issued six in 21 years. 

Continuing their bizarre ruling, the justices wrote:

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. 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.” 

In other words, the justices chose to ignore both the Supreme Court and the Constitution’s overarching authority over citizens’ God-given rights. 

“The United States Supreme Court disables the states’ responsibility to protect public safety, reduce gun violence, and safeguard peaceful public movement,” the justices wrote, in complete defiance of the Supremacy Clause. 

In something of a complete disconnect from reality, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling actually acknowledged that “Article 1, Section 17 of the Hawai’i Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution” in affirming “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

But infringed is precisely what the Supreme Court in Hawaii has done, claiming that state residents have “no constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Hawai’i Constitution. 

However, Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution establishes the document as the “Supreme Law of the Land.” 

Despite that, the Hawaii court claims that the state’s constitution trumps the US Constitution. 

“We believe that the proper sequence to consider matching constitutional text is to interpret the Hawai’i Constitution before its federal counterpart.” 

In possibly the most surreal move a state court has made, the Hawaii Supreme Court actually channeled a quote from an HBO television series, “The Wire.”; 

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution,” they wrote. “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” 

Unhappy with only attacking the US Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and Bruen, the Hawaii justices then attacked the court on the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, claiming the majority used “historical fiction” to overturn the landmark abortion case. 

As expected, far-left Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, a Democrat, praised the decision, Fox News reported. 

“This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun safety legislation,” Lopez said. “Gun violence is a serious problem, and commonsense tools like licensing and registration have an important role to play in addressing that problem.” 

“More broadly, Justice Eddins’ thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the court provides an important reminder about the crucial role that state courts play in our federal system,” Lopez added. “We congratulate our friends and partners at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui for their work on this important case.” 

The case goes back to 2017 when Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm he was carrying was not registered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. Wilson told officers that the firearm was purchased in Florida in 2013. 

Wilson argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights. 

So you have a rogue court defying the United States Supreme Court, joining Joe Biden, the aforementioned “elderly man with a poor memory,” in deliberately defying high court rulings. 

And they call Trump a dictator.