I can think of no better way to celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday than with the United States Supreme Court ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, a Hawaiian gun control law. But even more important that the fact this law was struck down, is how wonderfully it highlights the unique and masterful design of the United State of America.
Wolford v. Lopez was the appeal of one of Hawaii’s “Bruen Response” gun control laws. Like many of the nanny gun control states, Hawaii’s response to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was to redefine vast swaths of the public as so-called “sensitive spaces” where even licensed conceal carriers were not permitted to go armed. Hawaii included a provision which turned all private property open to the public like grocery stores, restaurants, hotels and shops into gun-free zones by default. To carry a concealed firearm into ANY private business, the concealed carry permit holder had to get express permission from the private property owner before entry. This led to the ‘vampire rule’ nickname, since it’s common knowledge a vampire can’t come into your home without being invited.
Hawaii defended this law under the Bruen, which requires any government regulation of firearms must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, by citing post-Civil War Black Codes used to disarm newly freed slaves. Obviously, this was later ruled to be unconstitutional, but it was nonetheless used by the State of Hawaii as a valid historical comparison.
Bear in mind it was the Hawaii Supreme Court whose UNANIMOUS ruling directly defied the United States Supreme Court by deciding there is no right to carry a firearm in public in the State of Hawaii because it violates the “Spirit of Aloha”.
Long legal story short, the United States Supreme Court ruled in that violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. This ruling also invalidates ‘vampire rule’ laws in California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
The reaction from the anti-gun zealots was as predictable as it was ridiculous. In coordinated mock disgust statements manufactured by the folks at Gun Control, Inc., they complained the court is “expanding gun rights”, ignored Supreme Court tradition of protecting property rights, thwarted the will of the majority of Hawaii’s voters and democratically elected legislature.
To understand how important ruling is, let’s go back to the beginning of our nation and look at how our country was created. The Founding Fathers were terrified of a democracy and the potential for tyranny of the majority. This was reason we are a Constitutional Republic. This is why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, the three equal branches of government, a population-based House of Representatives and a Senate with two members from each state, no matter the size, and yes, even the Electoral College.
At the most basic level, the United States Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights. The rights have always existed as natural rights with the Second Amendment restricting the government, not the people. The Supreme Court could only rule on laws which infringed on those rights.
This case was also never about property rights. It is about the State of Hawaii declaring all private property a gun-free zone by default. Property owners have always had the right to deny access to people carrying firearms, but they must make this decision on their own. They have always been free to post signs declaring their property a gun-free zone.
As for the will of the majority of Hawaiians and their legislature, Associate Justice Barrett’s concurrence explains it very well. “While most Hawaiians might prefer that no one carry firearms in public places, a majority’s opposition to a constitutional right is not a permissible basis for restricting it.” “After all, ‘[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy’ and ‘to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials.’”
This is what the genius of our country’s design boils down to. Protecting the rights of everyone from the tyranny of the majority. So every time you hear someone talking about getting rid of relics of the past like the Second Amendment, the Electoral College and restructuring and packing the Supreme Court to “reduce the influence of politics”, understand it coming from those who wish to remove our Constitutional protections and impose their own ideology instead.
A final note: Good news Hawaii! The Attorney General is now reviewing the United States Supreme Court ruling. Hopefully the language is clear enough for her to understand the United States Constitution applies to the 50th state the same as it does to the other 49.
Bob
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #GunControlLies, #Hawaii, #VampireRule, #SCOTUS, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com
Tag: #Hawaii
Defying SCOTUS & Aloha To Rights
When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the State of Texas, there was an immediate and loud reaction to “Defy SCOTUS!”. But now, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to carry a firearm in public in Hawaii saying the US Supreme Court rulings do not apply there. With this, the very same loud voices are crying foul and say Hawaii cannot defy the United States Supreme Court.
So, comply with decisions you agree with and defy the ones you don’t? Sorry, but that’s not the way the system works.
First off, the ruling in Texas was extremely limited and only applied to the Border Patrol being able to access portions of the border under control by the State of Texas, and if necessary, cutting their fences, to do their jobs.
What it DID NOT address is the ginormous pachyderm in the room that our current administration has redefined the job of the Border Patrol to be that of an illegal alien welcoming committee instead of defending our borders and preventing illegal border crossings.
The absolute worst-case scenario in this situation would be federal government attempting to remove or take members of Texas contingent into custody by force. From everything I’ve seen from the border area, the individuals on the ground on both sides are professionals and that won’t happen. However, I can also envision the FBI false flag division getting involved to create a situation where they ‘need to act’. Time will tell.
In the meantime, Texas will continue to defend its border from foreign invasion, without having to defy SCOTUS.
In the Second Amendment world, many states have been openly defying the Supreme Court with their so-called ‘Bruen response laws’, essentially attempting to implement the exact same unconstitutional restrictions in a different way.
Now we have the Hawaii Supreme Court issuing a unanimous ruling directly defying the United States Supreme Court by deciding there is no right to carry a firearm in public in the State of Hawaii.
Relying on US Supreme Court decisions in many cases including Miller, Heller, McDonald and even parts of Bruen, the Hawaii Supreme Court uses them as rational to reject the actual conclusion of Bruen. They go into great detail cherry-picking outlier opinions from reports and publications supporting their conclusions. Justification for current firearm regulations include laws from the slave era days of restricting firearms to white property owners and King Kamehameha I (1795 –1819) enacting Hawaii’s first law: Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe, or “law of the splintered paddle.”
Honestly, if I didn’t read the decision myself, I would have thought this was something from the Babylon Bee, yet the quotes from the ruling speak for themselves. The link to the ruling is below. It’s a hoot.
“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”
“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. “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” The Wire: Home Rooms (HBO television broadcast Sept. 24, 2006) (Season Four, Episode Three).”
“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.”
“There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17. So there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense.”
Federalism principles allow states to provide broader constitutional rights protection to their people than the federal constitution. However, in Hawaii’s case, they are using this principle to eliminate rights protected at the federal level.
So, Hawaii, the 50th state of the United States, has just declared that they are not bound by the US Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment. What other natural rights protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights can be eliminated in Hawaii?
There are many issues with this ruling but for me it boils down to the extremist left attempting to destroy the rule of law and the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court. To be clear, they only want to destroy the rule of laws they DON’T agree with. If they agree with it, it should be enforced vigorously and those who break it punished severely.
The US Supreme Court itself has been a target of the extremists since it shifted to a 5-4 conservative majority. There have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks on the conservative justices. These include attempts to impeach, attempts to get them to retire or recuse themselves from important cases, threats to reorganize the courts, impose term limits, and even a plan to pack the Court with five new liberal justices in order to “remove political bias”.
Yet the biggest threat is to simply defy Supreme Court decisions the extremists disagree with. By ignoring the court’s ruling, they delegitimize the court itself and eliminate its function as the third independent branch of the government. Sadly, this is conceivable since it is the executive branch which enforces Supreme Court rulings. And as we’ve seen lately, the executive and legislative branches have zero interest in complying with Supreme Court rulings they oppose.
It’s very simple. Once you destroy the rule of law, you have no law. We don’t get to selectively defy one Supreme Court ruling because we disagree with it while absolutely demanding others comply with a ruling we do agree with. That’s not how the system works.
I’ll ask again, do you really think it doesn’t matter who you vote for?
Bob
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #Aloha2ARights, #Hawaii, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com