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

states don't have rights, they have powers. states agreed to limit some of their powers by ratifying the fourteenth amendment. that's why states cannot ban interracial marriages nor should they be able to ignore the second amendment as the Democrats have done in Hawaii

 

"In Bruen, conservatives comprising the majority in the 6-3 decision said lower courts should assess whether modern firearm regulations are consistent with Second Amendment text as well as history and tradition....

"Appeals courts are trying to apply the standard in a litany of cases likely to make their way to the Supreme Court....

"The full Eleventh Circuit has been asked to rehear a case that upheld Florida’s ban on gun sales to people between the ages of 18 and 20....

"In Barrett’s concurring opinion in Bruen, she said the majority didn’t answer whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791....

"Roskam noted that the Eleventh Circuit focused its analysis on historical laws from the post Civil War Reconstruction Era in upholding Florida’s ban on guns being sold to 18 to 20 year-olds."
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...y-supreme-courts-historical-test-for-gun-laws

Apparently, not all state gun laws are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. A Florida ban on gun sales to people under 21 is constitutional because it's consistent with gun laws of the Civil War Reconstruction Era. Hawaii's concealed carry laws are also consistent with the gun laws of that era. From Saul Cornell's law journal article (The Right to Regulate Arms in the Era of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Emergence of Good Cause Permit Schemes in Post-Civil War America):

"During the Reconstruction Era, localities enacted some of the most sweeping laws in approaches to gun regulation. The most important and influential type of these new ordinances were good cause permit schemes. Indeed, by the end of Reconstruction, these discretionary good cause permitting schemes had not only proliferated in number but were in the process of becoming the dominant model of gun regulation in America.... By the era of Reconstruction, gun violence had emerged as a serious problem in American life and legislators responded to this development by enacting scores of new laws.... The constitutional danger nineteenth century America faced, one that intensified after the Civil War, was not 'lobster-back' redcoats facing off against minutemen, but interpersonal gun violence and the collective terrorist violence perpetuated by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. In response to these new threats to the peace and safety of the republic, a novel formulation of the right to bear arms emerged in state constitutional law — a new model that forged an indissoluble bond between the right to regulate arms and the right to bear arms.... Laws regulating the sale of arms; prohibitions on possessing arms in churches, schools, and polling places; bans on concealed carry; general bans on public carry; and new discretionary permit schemes that limited the right of armed travel to situations in which citizens had a good cause to fear attack were among the most important laws adopted during this period."
https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/s...6/files/media/documents/55-online-Cornell.pdf

 

well stuff like the 1934 NFA is clearly in violation of the tenth amendment and Bruen. BTW Saul Cornell is pretty much seen as a joke in this area-he's a paid whore of the anti gun movement and is consistently wrong on legal scholarship. He is the epitome of an outcome based "scholar" and has little standing in this area

while some scholars are overly kind to him, there are some serious criticisms
https://networks.h-net.org/node/950...egulated-militia-founding-fathers-and-origins

If I am reading Cornell correctly, he is arguing that early Americans believed that the right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed only to enrolled militiamen, and that it applied only to a single weapon per militiaman. If I have misunderstood him, I hope he will use part of his response to clarify. But if I have understood him correctly, then I think he has mis-conceptualized the civic right at the heart of the Second Amendment.

Cornell also ignored the entire fact that Article One Section eight gave the federal government ZERO power to regulate privately owned firearms of those acting in a private capacity. On top of that he constantly intermixes state powers with federal powers and claims state powers somehow created parallel federal powers that are not present in the actual body of the constitution

 

for those interested in the issue concerning the anti individual rights view of Saul Cornell, have a look at this

https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=8710&context=expresso

and another scathing attack on the collectivist rights nonsense-pre Heller



https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr

which lampoons the claim that the reason for the right acts as a limitation on the right
(I am unable to cut and paste relevant quotes from that article)

 

I think Cornell's argument is that there was a big shift in American thinking between the time the Second Amendment was created and the time the Fourteenth Amendment was created. In 1791, Americans were much more concerned about state militias being armed. In 1868, Americans were much more concerned about having guns for self-defense but also a lot more concerned about gun violence in their communities. Due to technological advances, firearms had become much more dangerous. Cornell explains:
"The Republicans who framed and enacted the Fourteenth Amendment were eager to protect the Second Amendment rights of recently freed persons, including an individual right of self-defense. But Republicans were equally committed to enacting strong racially neutral gun regulations, aimed at reducing interpersonal violence and preserving the peace, a task vital to the success of Reconstruction. Scores of new regulations were enacted and one of the main goals of these laws was to limit the public carry of weapons. These laws were not driven by racial animus, as some gun rights advocates have erroneously claimed, but sought to protect vulnerable populations in the South, including former slaves and Republicans eager to further the aims of Reconstruction."

Gun ownership went hand in hand with strong gun regulations. So the Republicans who took part in creating the Fourteenth Amendment probably would have approved of Hawaii's gun laws.

 

a the time the second amendment was penned-no one in power, nor none of the founders, even contemplated that the new government had any gun control power or that free citizens could be banned from owning firearms of any type. and that is undeniable. you can talk about state laws all you want bu the second amendment was a complete ban on a government that was never given any gun control powers in the first place, from enacting such laws.

now, there is no doubt that once constitutional restrictions on where one can carry guns or who can buy guns at a state level will be upset by incorporation and that is where the gun banning left will have some room to argue in favor of restrictions. but at the time the second was penned, there was no federal power whatsoever to restrict, ban, or limit what arms lawful citizens could own.

 

that is what it sounds like to me too

 

Think about the intrinsic logic of Bruen: The 2a speaks for itself and what restrictions it would allow were in existence during the Founding at its passage.
That means no, you don't consider the cutoff to be Reconstruction ffs. What gets applied at incorporation is what the 2a already did and meant the entire time IE founding era is the yardstick.

 

Does the Second Amendment authorize some level of gun control? The RKBA is NOT supposed to undermine the security of a free state. It is supposed to support it per the Second Amendment. Some degree of regulation is necessary to make that a reality. Otherwise, rampant gun violence could endanger the security of a free state.

"In Heller, Scalia dismissed the idea that courts ought to engage in a form of ad hoc interest-balancing to arrive at a reasonable trade-off between public safety and the rights of gun owners. The problem with Scalia’s argument is that both common law and the Second Amendment itself affirmed such an approach. The right of individuals to arm themselves under common law was always balanced against the need to preserve the peace. The Second Amendment itself reminds us that the right to keep and bear arms must serve the goal of preserving a free state."
https://thebaffler.com/latest/gun-anarchy-and-the-unfree-state

It seems like federal gun laws passed since the 1930s are generally accepted. Dangerous and unusual types of weapons such as sawed-off shotguns and machine guns are restricted. Certain types of people (addicts, felons, domestic abusers) can be disarmed. Guns can be banned in sensitive areas such as schools and airports.

 

See Bruen: All you've got to do is point to an analogous provision in place during the time of the founding.

Hint: For something like the NFA, which its own author's proudly crow was a novel idea with no historic analog in their own committee hearings passing the ****ing thing, that's not going to be possible.

Further: Your 2nd paragraph is just completely off base. You're literally adding clauses to the 2a that don't exist. If you're confused as to what the 2a means, see Heller.
You're trying to have a prefatory clause effect an operative clause. That's not how grammar works in our language.

2 of those 3 things (really 2.5 since sensitive places was pared down as well) are under current challenge.

 

Dupe please delete

 

the second amendment, along with the tenth, if properly read, does not allow ANY federal gun control affecting private citizens acting in their private capacity other than perhaps preventing private citizens from carrying or using weapons in federal facilities. the state power to regulate the USE of firearms as long as the laws do not prevent lawful citizens from owning carrying lawfully using, possessing etc firearms might well pass constitutional muster

that was due to fraudulent interpretations of the second due to the dishonesty of FDR era judges since the federal government has no proper power at all to pass such laws. The second amendment is a negative restriction on the federal government that is not reduced in any way by your claim

not really, state laws, prior to incorporation, were accepted in terms of banning felons etc from owning firearms. Any ban on bearable weapons, especially firearms is bogus. Some conservative judges merely were slaves to precedent rather than actually accepting clearly unconstitutional laws such as the 1934 NFA. BTW hand held machine guns are not any more dangerous than semi auto only versions of the same weapon in almost every environment

 

Don't forget it wasn't just the judges in miller. The defense attorney presented no evidence, and somehow got a fed court appointment soon after the case was closed. Lots of funky **** going on in miller

 

a guy who, at the time-was an associate at perhaps the most prestigious law firm on wall street-now a professor of law-Brian Frye, wrote a very good article on the fact that the case was a set up involving collusion between the FDR administration, and a militant gun hating FDR district court appointee


http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf



It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case arranged by the government and designed to support the constitutionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history.

Ragon (the trial judge) did not really think the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and probably colluded with the government to create the ideal test case. His opinion is peculiar on its face, begging for an appeal. A memorandum disposition is appropriate when deciding a routine case, but not when holding a law facially unconstitutional.

 

States don't have the right to suspend the Constitution.

 

many on the left loved it when the supreme court struck down state restrictions on interracial (Loving v VA) and gay marriage using the 14th amendment to do so. I support the USSC striking down any state restrictions on fundamental freedoms-even of groups that I see as political opponents. But its fun watching so many on the left get upset when the federal courts strike down violations of the incorporated second amendment

 

Don't be silly now... We all know progressives only follow the Constitution when it's convenient to them and their agenda.

The rest of the time they thumb their nose and raise their middle finger and wipe their ass on it

 

https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barnett-FFLpetition.pdf

^ @Turtledude petition by Paul Clement in another case, mentioned the Hawaii case as case in point of how refusal to honor SCOTUS precedents at the lower court level was "spreading like a disease".

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."
- Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constititution

Isn't enacting gun control laws one way of providing for the general welfare?

 

It when the constitution clearly does not grant them the power to do so.

 

Saul Cornell on U.S. v. Miller:

"Miller and Layton, the defendants in the case, had no connection to the militia and thus were technically without standing to bring a Second Amendment claim. Rather than address this issue, the Court wisely recognized that the definition of the militia could change. If Congress decided to recreate the universal militia of the Founding Era, a plausible scenario when Europe was at war, the defendants might well have been able to raise such a claim. It was therefore important for the Court to reach a determination about the scope of Congressional power over firearms quite apart from the issue of who might claim to be in the militia.... The Court prudently developed a two-pronged test to evaluate a Second Amendment claim: weapons had to be of a type related to militia activity and had to be used in conjunction with participation in a well-regulated milita. This test avoided the potentially absurd result of giving criminals the opportunity to claim that if their guns were used by the National Guard and part of the ordinary equipment of the soldier they were entitled to Second Amendment protection. If the court had focused exclusively on the type of weapon and ignored the context in which the weapon was used, it would have given Second Amendment protection to criminals bearing bazookas and flamethrowers."

So even if Miller and Layton had been members of the militia, the federal government could still restrict their usage of guns for private purposes.

 

Sounds like an insurrection.

 

If guns didn't make you safer you wouldn't have a need for a military.

If guns didn't make you safer Bloomberg wouldn't have a small army of mercenaries guarding him.

If guns didn't make you safer there wouldn't be armed security at CNN headquarters.

 

Did you include all the suicides and domestic violence and accidental gun deaths in your calculus?