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

And yet I consider my life worth just as much as theirs. There are no more worthy of self-defense than anyone else.

 

So you believe the overlords should enjoy armed protection while the little peons they dictate over, should not.

 

so you hire private security too then? I do think politicians and public figures are at more risk than the common folk is why they get private security

I said in my post you replied too

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

do you disagree with that?

 

Do you think the average person can afford private security details? But there is a really cheap way to shrink your private security detail and put it in your pocket.... And you don't even have to have goons following you around !

As for your question obviously the people who pass for leaders in Hawaii have a problem with it.

 

I don't buy that narrative, and increasingly less people do - even in America.

 

It's not a "narrative"..... You are free to believe that your life is less valuable and that you are less worthy of the same self-protection that they enjoy.

But you are not free to tell others that they must feel the same way as you

 

Dehumanising people who don't vacuum-hoover gun culture rhetoric like it's a line of cocaine is definitely a narrative. You can probably download it in bullet point form from most RW political pawn shops.

 

Instead of reciting some gooblygunk.... It should actually anger you a little bit that the same people that say you have no right to a gun have no problem having their life protected by a gun.

The anti-gunners mentality.... They would rather die a victim than think about defending themselves with one of those horrible guns...

They have them trained very well

 

Careful you don't scratch the record with the needle running over that same groove.

Your neurosis amplified to a societal level leads to the current carnage in the US. And ultimately kids brains and guts get splattered.

 

That’s absurd to say. Guns do in fact save lives too. Self defense isn’t just a made up term. It’s a fact of life. Everyone should carry the means necessary to defend themselves or you’re just a target. You caan great people with firearms. Some of the best people I have ever known are everyday carry people

 

Kids brains and guts get splattered from blue hairs, trench coats, gangs, pot smokers, and trans men.

Notice a trend? All these things liberals defend.

 

I really think it depends where you are. In most places around the world strict gun laws = less gun deaths. This includes Hawaii. Now if you're working in a dangerous area or have a dangerous job that's a different matter.

 

I have no idea how this rebutts my post.

 

Do guns save lives? Probably in isolated incidents but it's a very small number compared to the number of lives taken by guns.

 

I think the states still have the constitutional authority to pass the necessary gun laws to protect their residents. Powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states per the Tenth Amendment.

 

As I Constitutionalist, I agree with that reading of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court opened up a can of worms when it ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. It's hard to go back on that precedent.

If it were up to me, I think gun restrictions should only be limited to the densest of population areas (like from the area around Boston to Washington D.C., maybe Chicago and Los Angeles), rather than by entire state lines.

Hawaii is unique in that they could set whatever separate gun regulations they want from the rest of the country, and the situation on the mainland would not affect them, since almost everyone traveling there has to go through security screening.

It seems neither side wants to give up ground or think up a creative compromise because they are afraid it could set some precedent or give up ground.
(I mean give up ground could set precedent; or a creative compromise could give up ground)

 

See 14th amendment incorporation.

 

The "spirit of aloha" sounds like a religion. And you can't make a religion the law. So it looks to me like it violates both the first and second amendments of the Constitution. They are free to practice it, but not to enforce it on everyone.

 

I suspect Hawaii is going to get its nose rubbed in Bruen .

this well reasoned article explains why
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/1...dup-the-hawaii-supreme-court-overrules-bruen/

Wilson fails to analyze the actual precedents when it asserts: "Until Heller, the Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to keep and bear arms." Well, the Court assumed that the right is individual in Scott v. Sandford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Robertson v. Baldwin(1897), U.S. v. Miller (1939), Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).


ouch

 

see my post directly above this one

 

It's about State's rights.

We are not a kingdom or dictatorship

 

We did nullification already. Had a whole civil war over it. Its not a thing. Don't make me break out the memes.

Odd then that they are citing an edict from a king as having more force than the constitution of our republic.


Further: "But Wilson neglects that Delegate Jack H. Mizuha, Chairman of the Committee on Bill of Rights, read those very words when bringing the provision before the convention and explained that the term "the people" "applies to all persons here in the territory." Delegate Phillips asked, "To each individual or to them as a group? … Well, you say … 'the militia,' and then … after the comma, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.' Do you mean there the right of the individual or the right of the – …." Mizuha replied, "All individuals. … Individual rights, the Constitution is for individuals." 2 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii, 1950, at 11-12 (1961)."
^ The ratification committee in 1950 explicitly asked whether it was an individual or collective right. They were told individual. They passed it as such.
No backsies applies.

 

most of the stuff they pass is only pretending to protect state residents. Most of it is designed to pander to the ignorant and harass those who oppose Democrat policies

 

Thank you.
No need to break out meme's.