Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ha...loha-supersedes-constitution-second-amendment

I am mind blown, completely mind blown! These judges are basically saying they did not agree to the constitution when they became a state. They also literally chose to quote an HBO show over the constitution, I mean can you be for real? A quote from a TV show holds more legal weight than the constitution or the supreme courts previous rulings?

This example proves that liberal judges do not care about the United States Constitution. Apparently they believe the states constitution and HBO has more legal standing the United States Constitution. Liberals couldn’t possibly make it more clear that all the constitution is is something that can be changed or ignored by a simple majority vote of a 5 person panel of judges.

 

Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...des-constitution-second-amendment/ar-BB1hZJDv

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."

So, we are now reaching another moral low, where an American states says they can decide what parts of the U S Constitution they want to follow.

Once you let nonsense take a seat at the table of reason- the SHTF.
They won't be the last to try it.

 

Even worse, Their own state constitution says:

Article I, § 17 of the Hawaii Constitution states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They don't even agree with their state constitution...lol

 

Gun control isn't about "feeling good". It's about disarming the citizenry, so that we can be easily controlled.

 

time for the supreme court to give that state an enema since the crap has blocked the rights of the citizens

 

I think if you read the rulling it will make more sense. Some quotes that stood out to me:

"Like the first clause’s 'well regulated militia,' the second clause’s 'bear arms' has a collective, military meaning. Linguistic experts have churned through historical materials, like the Corpus of Founding Era American English and the Corpus of Early Modern English, to get to the bottom of the Second Amendment’s key words. 'Founding-era sources almost always use bear arms in an unambiguously military sense.'....

"The framers included the right to keep and bear arms in the federal constitution 'in response to their fear that [the] government might disarm the militia, not restrict the common law right of self-defense.' Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487, 499 (2004)....

"Bruen unravels durable law. No longer are there the levels of scrutiny and public safety balancing tests long-used by our nation’s courts to evaluate firearms laws. Instead, the Court ad-libs a 'history-only' standard....

"Bruen’s command to find an old-days 'analogue' undercuts the other branches’ responsibility – at the federal, state, and local levels - to preserve public order and solve today’s problems. And it downplays human beings’ aptitude for technological advancement....

"We believe it is a misplaced view to think that today’s public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago. Smoothbore, muzzle-loaded, and powder-and-ramrod muskets were not exactly useful to colonial era mass murderers....

"Regulations like storing powder safely, reporting with guns for militia 'musters' (weapons inspection), and loyalty oaths are hardly helpful to address contemporary gun violence. Yet those odd laws have historical and traditional roots. Democratically-vetted laws, though – measures taken by today’s citizens to save lives - are mostly out of bounds....

"A backward-looking approach ignores today’s realities. 'In 2019 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 30 criminal homicides.' (316 justifiable homicides and 9,610 criminal homicides.) This ratio does not take into account suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. See Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, Violence Policy Center, 1, March 2023, https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable23.pdf"
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf

 

To be fair, not allowing guns probably works in most areas of Hawaii.

70% of the state's population lives on the island of Oahu which is very densely populated, almost like a big city area in New Jersey. So police response times in most of Oahu are very short.
The armed robbery and violent crime rate in most of the rest of Hawaii is rather low, probably due to having paradise as a backdrop setting, the relaxing warm climate, and most of the lower income population demographic not being able to afford living there. The people who visit are mostly in vacation mode.
And then the fact that due to being an island, it is harder for criminals to make a quick getaway. They cannot drive very far away. On the islands with smaller communities it is more difficult to get away and blend in.

 

That's illogical and the intentionally distorted way to deny the constitution. So- a few points you should be aware of.

The arms carried by citizens at that time were exactly the same as the arms carried by the military forces. Today, the military standard for the basic soldier is capable of fully automatic fire. The so called "assault weapon" call the AR-15 in semi-automatic. The military never used it or bought it, and hasn't used that kind of weapons since Korea.

Secondly the wording of the 2nd Amendment is clearly demonstrated by it's historical use.

A "militia" refers to the ability to call on citizens to form fighting forces in emergencies. We are ALL militia, in that in the most dire of circumstances- we must defend ourselves.
When the civil war started- the southern armies out-numbered the Union army several times over. Had the war been fought on that basis, the South would have won handily.

President Lincoln used the benefit of the 2nd; he put out a call for 70,000 men to form volunteer militias, and come to the aid of the Union, and He got a lot more than that. There was neither time to train troops, nor money to equip them- but the militias quickly came with hunting experience, woodsmans skills, fully armed, equipped even with uniforms they made for themselves. They elected their own officers from their own ranks, practiced disciplines and reported for duty. My family has a roster from the Pennsylvania militia, because one of our ancestors was part of it. That militia is the reason the nation is still the "United States" today.

WE the people are the militia; the force that can back up our military if the situation makes it necessary. It is the insurance, the reserve strength of the nation.

All the anti-gun people ignore the glaring fact that proves them wrong. Murders, including mass murders have been happening since before any history was written. There is always a "worst weapon"., the state of the art. Started with a rock, then a club, then a knife, then a spear, then a bow and a sword, then a crude gun, then a sophisticated gun, and perhaps soon a laser disruptor.
The ONLY common denominator of all time is a person bent on murder. Violent people are the cause of murders. Your house right now is full of weapons. Kitchen knives, hammer, screwdriver, baseball bat. You however are alive because no one there wants to kill you- not because there is no weapon to use. Even if you are alone and naked, you carry a weapon that kills more people every year than all the types and calibers of long guns combined- fists and feet.

Weapons do not murder people- People murder people. Violent people. If a gun isn't there, they will simply use what is. The weapon may change- the motivation will not. And no law will change the mind of a person intent on murder.

Start taking violent people out of the picture and murders will drop. It is the only consistent element.

As far as the 2nd also protecting the people from a corrupt government- today, I see the most corrupt government of my life, and I'm old. I'm trying to fix it, and I believe that can be done with means that don't need weapons. But the logic of many, and it is rational- is this: IF you don't plan to do anything that might force me to defend myself- why do you want to make me defenseless?

Surely, you are not so naive as to assume corrupt governments don't pose a risk to the freedom of the people- especially when the people have no power to oppose them. History would tell you that is a very foolish belief. I figure you are smarter than that.

 

the reason why the term is mainly used in a military sense was that the founders had just won a rebellion against the British, the interpretation of the second is not at all determined by an anti gun propaganda center's anti gun statistics,

when one examines the statements of the founders, combined with a complete dearth of any gun control powers being delegated to the federal government, it is obvious that the second contemplated an individual right and the anti gun office holding clowns in Hawaii most likely will get a lesson in jurisprudential hierarchy from the USSC. what Hawaii has done was wave a red flag in the fact of the superior court and asking for it to trample that state's wrong ruling

 

Is it okay if I call them liberal nut bags with zero respect for the Constitution who think that they are little kings that rule over their serfs?

I know sometimes speaking the truth is not popular. Jesus spoke the truth all the time and look what happened to him as a result.

Anyone who tells you that Democrats are not ultimately out to ban civilian gun ownership all together, is either a fool or in denial.

How much more evidence could a rational person possibly need to see that?

 

It proves how illy they regard the constitution. It means nothing to them. So why would they care what the Supreme Court has to say?

 

so is the 'spirit of Aloha' like a religion?

are they choosing the 'spirit of Aloha' over the constitution

 

Come again…. Who claimed anything about religion in this case?

 

Or perhaps, they are just applying some common sense. Keeping gun numbers low means less gun suicides and unnecessary murders as well.

A further reason perhaps, not explored in the article is also that outside gun-lovin' enclaves in the US, having everyday citizens walking around carrying guns for no reason is provocative, antisocial, if not dick headed

"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."

 

so what do you think the spirit of Aloha is? I await your answer....

I asked a question

"so is the 'spirit of Aloha' like a religion?"

Simple question

 

Yes of course they're trying to keep the gun numbers so low, they are below zero.

Your opinion on guns is nothing but your opinion

 

I'm reading 14.9% gun ownership in Hawaii. With a population of 1.4 million that should be enough to overthrow the government if they have to. Lol.

 

Yes and the Hawaii government is telling citizens that they do not have a right to carry arms for self-defense.

Does it remotely bother you that the same hypocrites who are telling people that they don't have the right, enjoy armed protection themselves?

Are there lives worth more than the average citizen?

 

What makes you think that the majority of Hawaiians don't want the Hawaiian government that they put into power to enact this? Perhaps the other 85% of gun owners.

 

in public, but they can own them, think what they are saying is people can't go armed to the store kinda thing

I am against people carrying ar-15's into stores, but concealed guns do not bother me

 

Well we can only speculate since you didn't provide any data, but let's assume you're right.....

So the other 15% who actually care about the ability to defend their own life using the best tool... Screw those people, you will bow to the will of the mob.

I see you dodged my question...

 

And yet the same dictators telling citizens they don't have the right have no problem enjoying armed protection in public.

 

yes, people in high profile positions often have a security detail

 

I hear that when you visit Nigeria you need an armed security guard.

 

I didn't realise that democracy was called bowing to the will of the mob?

Why should Hawaiians be constrained by a political theme park interpretation of a document written 250 years ago in a location 5,000 miles away on another continent?

I didn't answer the question because it's based on the false premise that more guns make you safe.