Hawaii Supreme Court Brazenly Declares 2nd Amendment Does Not Exist Within The State

The recent decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court has sparked significant controversy and debate regarding the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment within the state. The court's ruling, which asserts that the Second Amendment does not extend to the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home, has been met with strong opposition from various advocacy groups, particularly the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

### Case Background

Christopher L. Wilson, a Hawaii resident, was charged with carrying a firearm and ammunition in public without the appropriate license. Wilson challenged the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-25 (2011) and § 134-27 (2011), arguing that these laws violated his Second Amendment rights and the equivalent provision in the Hawaii Constitution, article I, section 17. Initially, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed the charges, agreeing with Wilson's argument. However, the State appealed this dismissal, leading to the Hawaii Supreme Court's controversial ruling.

### Hawaii Supreme Court's Ruling

The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the text, purpose, and historical tradition of the Hawaii Constitution do not support an individual right to carry firearms in public. The court interpreted article I, section 17, which mirrors the Second Amendment, as tying the right to bear arms to the context of a well-regulated militia, not extending this right to non-militia purposes. The court also considered Hawaii's history of strict weapons regulation and the intent of Hawaii's framers in its decision[1].

### Opposition and Legal Challenge

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Wilson's petition for a writ of certiorari. SAF argues that the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision is a blatant disregard for the Second Amendment, which they assert guarantees an individual's right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home. SAF's founder, Alan M. Gottlieb, and Executive Director, Adam Kraut, have both condemned the ruling as an act of judicial activism that undermines the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They argue that this decision, if left unchallenged, could set a dangerous precedent allowing state courts to erode federally protected rights[1].

### Federalism and the Second Amendment

SAF's petition emphasizes that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class right" and should not be subject to the political and philosophical whims of state Supreme Courts. They argue that the U.S. Constitution's protections must be uniformly applied across all states, and Hawaii's decision to limit these rights is a violation of federalism principles. SAF contends that the "Aloha Spirit" does not override the U.S. Constitution and that the right to bear arms for self-defense is a fundamental right that must be upheld[1].

### Conclusion

The Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling has ignited a significant legal battle over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for gun rights and state versus federal authority in the United States. The Second Amendment Foundation's challenge to this ruling underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between state regulations and federally protected rights.

Citations:
[1] https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/hawaii-supreme-court-brazenly-declares-2nd-amendment-does-not-exist-within-the-state/

SCOTUS needs to shadow docket a beat down.

Not sure if they can. But this has clearly already been decided, doing a full hearing is a waste of time - but letting it stand is impossible.

Now there's a load if there ever was one. Maybe next time the foreign bombers roar across the landscape we all should just sit back and watch.