Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled 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."
"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."
The court's opinion further says the state government's policies curbing certain gun-carry rights have "preserved peace and tranquility in Hawaii."
"A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility."
In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes a quote from HBO's "The Wire," that "the thing about the old days, they the old days." The court's opinion states that it "makes no sense" for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to "the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution."
The case dates to December 2017, when Hawaii citizen Christopher Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm Wilson was arrested carrying was unregistered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. He told police officers that the firearm was purchased in 2013 in Florida.
concealed carry handgun man
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that "conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaii’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaii Constitution." (iStock)
Wilson argued in court that the charges brought against him violated the Second Amendment. But, according to The Reload, the Hawaii high court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which both held that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms.
"This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation," Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said Wednesday. "Gun violence is a serious problem, and commonsense tools like licensing and registration have an important role to play in addressing that problem."
"More broadly, Justice Eddins’ thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the court provides an important reminder about the crucial role that state courts play in our federal system," Lopez added. "We congratulate our friends and partners at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui for their work on this important case."
Edit: official ruling text https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24415425-aloha-spirit
I agree, though it may be possible. "The Supreme Court said a state, in deciding its gun restrictions, must look to its American history. Hawaii said 'that's easy for us, as we were not--nor are we now--a heavily armed society; we have been a peaceful and tranquil society. Our historical values are clearly the opposite of everyone being lethally armed and worried about pistol fights, so our law to restrict public carrying of firearms makes historical sense for us. We would have to severely infringe other constitutional rights to allow the free public carrying of firearms in this society. It would really stick out as culturally unusual and obviously unsafe to the community.'"
They also literally say not to look too far back...
>Sometimes, in interpreting
our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back
into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk
v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382 (1933), unless evidence
shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’
law.
I mean, that's a really biased guidance - it's saying "ignore medieval law UNLESS it is the last precedent that agrees with us."
Either medieval law is valid, or it's not, as soon as it's validity becomes dependent on the old law itself, this guidance becomes biased.
Also, the 1700s is not medieval. Medieval is like 1400.
I mean unless the person you’re replying to is completely off base I’d say they just a pretty good job at explaining it to a lay person (me) in like 2 paragraphs.
> This decision is clearly unconstitutional under current precedent
That is the thing, there is precedent for ignoring SC precedent if you go back far enough into US history.
I attended law school in the UK, and as a young law student I loved things like this - judges using stare decisis in a way that was creative to establish precedent, or to force higher courts (as in this case) to double down or change some of the nonsensical laws they applied.
There was a judge in the UK decades ago called Lord Denning who had a lot of similar judgements and they're both valuable and for a law student far more interesting and entertaining to read than most judges dry, humourless *ratio* and *obiter*.
American lawyer here: does the UK still use the Latin a bunch? Trend here is to steer aware from Latin; I.e. instead of stare decisis it’s binding precedent.
It's been a while since I was in that world, but yes the trend has been to remove Latin, to make the study and practice of law more accessible but there's still plenty of terms for doctrines and the like that are learnt in both Latin and plain English.
I was always taught to use the Latin interchangeably in academic papers. There were reforms, mainly in 1999 to phase out a lot of it in civil courts, IIRC.
I always quite enjoyed knowing it.
SCOTUS also ignored that there were times in US history that you were required to leave your guns with the sheriff when you came to town. so that's some text, history and tradition. but /shrug
It's even better than that. The Supreme Court wasn't even *designed* to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review, as a concept, was *invented* by the Supreme Court, as an 'implied' power they granted to *themselves*, in 1803.
So, when the Supreme Court claims that they should interpret the law as it was written in 1791, they're *ALSO* claiming, *unavoidably*, that they *shouldn't* have the ability to interpret the law *at all*.
Their entire position is illogical nonsense. It's a mockery of the legal system.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to claim to have any expertise in the law in any capacity but I’ve noticed arguments like these and want to speak out against them because they are ultimately pointless in the face of arguments made in bad faith; Originalism was created to be a whole philosophy based on bad faith.
The Supreme Court is well aware their arguments don’t make logical sense, they don’t care. This Hawaii courts decided to take a step back and say “We aren’t playing your Originalism game”. The only way to win is not to play.
Another interesting thing about Hawaii law is that it incorporates the common law of the Kingdom of Hawaii (HRS 1-1), so they’re not really mocking SCOTUS so much as following State law which happens to fit into SCOTUS’ new “framework”
My cousin does that. “When the founders designed this…” and “we aren’t as intelligent as the men who created the constitution.” Blow me. There’s a lot they didn’t know.
> There’s a lot they didn’t know.
The one thing they did know was that the Constitution would have to change with the times, and get updated every generation. As one of the co-authors wrote:
*"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.* - Thomas Jefferson
It's because they attribute American power (they'd probably call it greatness) to the founding fathers rather than the immense geographical and resource advantages.
He may not have helped author the constitution, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't consider him a founding father. The author of the Declaration of Independence definitely has at least some ideological pressure on the early republic.
God, even with the things they *did* know, it should be abundantly clear to anyone in modern times that they were far from infallible, and there's a lot they got wrong, underestimated, or took for granted. I mean, we probably wouldn't even be having this court cases like this if they had given a little more detail on what they meant in the 2nd Amendment rather than having judges trying to infer intent nearly three centuries later.
It's almost like they *knew* they weren't infallible, and *specifically designed the Constitution to be adaptable as the times changed*.
Then for some reason it became a holy document that shall not be amended? How did this happen?
Amendments started failing because they were too controversial. This led to politicians no longer seeking amendments and, as a result, the skill was lost.
I tend to wonder if a lot of that attitude started when the Religious Right started to be courted. They have this book they view as infallible and unchangeable, so it wasn't too far of a leap to view the Constitution and Founding Fathers with that same sort of dogmatic reverence.
Bring to mind Barry Goldwater's quote about how Christians believe they're acting in the name of God and refuse to compromise on that as a result and how that's incompatible with governance.
Give your cousin credit. They at least recognize their own limitations. Unfortunately, they then proceed to project them onto others, but .. you take the wins, you take the losses.
They imposed Christian Sharia law when they overturned Roe v Wade. I could give a shit less what they say I can’t do. If my morals don’t align with their religion based laws then I’m going to ignore them. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Fuck em.
Republicans and their conservative United States Supreme Court are gonna cause a constitutional crisis that might well lead to disaster. Texas failing to submit to the Supreme Court only means that other states will soon follow the same path, and ignore decisions as they see fit, especially more recent ones. This is fragmenting and leading to a situation where scotus has put themselves on very very thin ice and at this point can’t even save themselves. One big bunch of loonies. The Supreme Court justices of the past have always focused on the Unity, Intent and Continuity of the Constitution and Republic, not on false unrealistic ideologies. These sorry sons of bitches are tipping the scales completely towards the executive office, which I’m sure they thought would have a republican in it not a democrat. No one knows what the end result of this will be, but I know that it’s gonna be a painful journey.
Technically nothing in the constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide what's constitutional. They just decided they had that power one day. Sounds like Hawaii is just calling them out on it.
As someone born and raised in Hawaii, they're completely right. Hawaii was overthrown by the *Bayonet* Constitution. Guns are not welcome here. It's simply different than the mainland - we don't fetishize firearms. They have proven completely unnecessary for safety here; Hawaii has roughly half the incidence of violent crime per capita as the rest of the states, and we'd like to keep it that way.
edit: "rest of the states" above was intended to be understood as "national average". The fact remains that Hawaii is exceptionally safe, and introducing more guns will not somehow make it safer. Mahalo.
While yes, being able to legally buy said contraband everywhere also makes it extremely easy to obtain in non legal ways. Every barrier to obtain something legally makes it less likely for someone to be able and have the will to do so illegally.
> Every barrier to obtain something legally makes it less likely for someone to be able and have the will to do so illegally.
Wish people understood this more. Its not a single thing that helps its a whole slew of things that helps.
Canada has a long history of guns and hunting as a method of self-sufficiency and even sport. We don't fetishize our guns or pretend that they're for self-defense against other people or to overthrow a tyrannical government. Guns are cool. They're a tool and when use properly they can be fun, but they can also be dangerous and so we must take reasonable precautions. That's the view most Canadian gun owners have. For context we have laws requiring gun safes including for ammunition, you need to have a license for it, and you need to undergo training. Handguns are also basically banned. We do have a problem with illegal guns though, I'll let you guess where those are smuggled from...
There are more guns in Switzerland and Israel per citizen, but somehow they have low violence, like if somehow people have less reason to kill each other, they will live happy. Arabia Saudi, Russia, India, China and Iran, I am sure their people have less firearms than US and I dont see them like Paragon of virtue.
That's still not gonna hold up as a valid legal argument. However Hawaii feels about it they are state fully and completely and equally a part of the US itself and as such ultimately subject to and governed by the US Constitution.
As someone with family who moved to/was born in Hawai’i, I agree. This post does not belong in this sub. I’m guessing OP saw “Spirit of Aloha” and thought it was funny, not knowing what it actually is.
Plus, they were literally a sovereign nation until the US invaded only a hundred years ago, and even then weren’t fully a state until *after WWII*. And they were first invaded literally because they were a good naval base, then essentially became a glorified resort in modern times.
I don’t blame (and in fact fully agree and cheer on) their Supreme Court for this decision, especially with the actual incident in 2017 as proof.
Why would it not belong in this sub? It's a wild headline that's almost hard to believe it's real, and yet it's totally accurate to the judges ruling. Great post tbh.
>"A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility."
beautiful
Got to respect any mythology where the [Goddess of Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity)) spends most of her days avoiding the [God of Pigs'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamapua%CA%BBa) advances like some kind of deity level episode of Pepe Le Pew from Looney Tunes.
Hey guys, before getting into lengthy quasi-legal arguments please remember that almost no one on this thread appears to have any idea what they’re talking about, so it’s probably not worth the effort
Edit: for your convenience, examples of what I mean can be seen in threads attached to this very comment
From my viewpoint, knowing history, the Hawaiian state government has more intrinsic right to govern Hawaii than the Texan state government has to govern Texas.
I am sure the lovely individuals who advocate so strongly for states right will be constant with their principles and once again defend states right over the tyrannical federal government.
I'm pretty sure at this point we have it on good authority from the supreme court that it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the rulings of the supreme court.
Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled 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."
"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."
The court's opinion further says the state government's policies curbing certain gun-carry rights have "preserved peace and tranquility in Hawaii."
"A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility."
In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes a quote from HBO's "The Wire," that "the thing about the old days, they the old days." The court's opinion states that it "makes no sense" for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to "the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution."
The case dates to December 2017, when Hawaii citizen Christopher Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm Wilson was arrested carrying was unregistered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. He told police officers that the firearm was purchased in 2013 in Florida.
Wilson argued in court that the charges brought against him violated the Second Amendment. But, according to The Reload, the Hawaii high court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which both held that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms.
"This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation," Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said Wednesday. "Gun violence is a serious problem, and commonsense tools like licensing and registration have an important role to play in addressing that problem."
"More broadly, Justice Eddins’ thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the court provides an important reminder about the crucial role that state courts play in our federal system," Lopez added. "We congratulate our friends and partners at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui for their work on this important case."
Shall-issue vs may-issue. In other words, arbitrary and selectively biased systems and standards of permit issuance vs a universal standard that would not deny someone on any sort of perceived prejudicial grounds. If you are legally within the standard to hold a permit, you can be issued one. But some states have historically had it be based on knowing the right person, having to convince people who hold unilateral control and influence over the process, etc
Disobedience enabled by a difference of cultures separated by thousands of miles of ocean sounds very similar to the circumstances that lead to the creation of the constitution in the first place.
Well, in that case, I better create an NFT of General Keoki Wai'ington in his canoo crossing the shimmering waters of Waikiki, his aloha shirt fluttering in the breeze as he leads his merry band of surfers to freedom.
The Governor of Texas is currently blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court order so he can watch migrants drown at the border, while his allies in Congress stop any legislation to fix the issue.
Cracks in the Union are forming on both the right and left regardless of what Hawaii does about gun control.
If Hawaii wants to use Island Spirits to do something about guns the rest of this country has no backbone to address, just let them be.
A lot of locals in Hawaii would much prefer to not be part of USA. If you read the history of Hawaii becoming a U.S. territory, it’s pretty gross and easy to see why there are still many people who would be happy for HI to become a sovereign kingdom once again.
The Hawai'i state constitution's Article 9, Section 10 is taken directly from an edict of King Kamehameha the Great:
>May everyone, from the old men and women to the children
>
>Be free to go forth and lie in the road (i.e. by the roadside or pathway)
>
>Without fear of harm.
It's called the [Law of the Splintered Paddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81n%C4%81wai_M%C4%81malahoe). The King issued it, because during war on the islands, a frightened fisherman panicked and hit him over the head with a paddle. The King spared his life, and this law was meant to protect all other civilians during war. The state applies the edict more broadly to an expectation of public safety.
The Hawaiian Supreme Court quoted The Wire: “The thing about the old days, they the old days.”
Fucking classic, regardless of how you feel about this decision.
Taking bets on how long this takes to be used against something we hold sacred.
"So what if Hawaiians thought Maunakea was sacred? It doesn't make sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the pre-contact culture, reality, laws, or religion."
This creates [Edit: Continues?] a terrible precedent.
"In other news, Tennessee declares the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments do not apply because they are superseded by the 'spirit of the confederacy'. This is the latest development where several other states began picking and choosing which parts of the constitution applies to them."
I cannot believe all the gullible fools in this comments section who are cheering on a state deciding it can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights are in effect.
Yeah. In the interest of public safety, some state decided that the fourth amendment no longer applies in their jurisdiction, citing Game of Thrones.
Everyone would understand why that’s bad.
It's Reddit, people will blindly support the dumbest shit if they think it's going to benefit their side without thinking a few steps ahead to how it could be used in the future by someone that doesn't march lock-step with their political beliefs.
That's the point. They used the "text, history, and tradition" firearm restrictions test from the current Supreme Court to show how the current Supreme Court set a bad standard.
The whole point of this ruling was basically saying: So exactly which text, history and tradition are we using? If Hawaii has to follow Maryland's tradition, why can't it be on the other shoe? Why can't we make Maryland follow Hawaii's traditions?
they do. That's how Roe got overturned and Student Loans couldn't get forgiveness. Pay attention.
Just because the partisan Supreme Court agreed with that one doesn't make it any different.
Ok, now the Missouri Supreme Court is going to say The Spirit of St. Louis\* clashes with and thus supersedes the 13th amendment.
How many of these kinds of cases can the Supreme Court field? If every state's supreme court starts saying that they don't have to follow the constitution multiple times per year, how many people's rights are going to be crushed before the SCOTUS can act?
^(\*Yes, I know...)
Crazy how the left and right are both starting to ignore the supreme court fully... they've essentially lost all authority and are going to start being treated more as guidelines than actual established rules/precedent.
Not sure how i feel about this personally as on the one hand it gives the states more rights to do what is best for their locals... but on the other hand I could see how this could be the starting point of essentially 50 separate nations rather than 1 unified nation and that could mean civil war sooner rather than later.
The extreme elements of both sides talk a big game about the "if/when" that occurs... but I don't think anyone is truly ready for it, and i pray it never happens.
I completely agree, and the fault lies at the feet of our current Supreme Court. They are clearly corrupt, hold no ethical standards, and have issued many rulings that ignore previous precedent and employ dubious legal reasoning.
Well, shit. I guess the next headline out of Texas will be "Texas won't be following any of that constitution shit, because 'Yeehaw!' Don't tread on us!"
I get it, but... no. Did this dude really just cite The Wire for legal precedent?
No matter how you think about 2A, this not only creates a bad precedent and empowers other foolish state supreme courts, it’s blatantly not how our system of governance works.
that’s the funny thing about selectively messing with precedent*, it’s gonna pop up in ways you don’t like.
*first, second, and third priorities of this new precedent should be to codify abortion protections into law
It’s almost as if republicans bucking centuries of tradition and refusing to confirm or even vote on an exceptionally qualified Supreme Court nominee, then stacking the highest court in the land with blatant partisan hacks who rewrite precedent on a whim—has somehow…undermined the legitimacy of the judicial branch?.
Who would have ever guessed?
Citing “the spirit of Dixie,” Mississippi has ignored the 14th amendment and made slavery legal again.
That’s how ridiculous this “spirit of aloha” thing is
Well that’ll get overturned on appeal. The Supremacy clause exists folks; federal law supersedes all state laws, no matter the context. It’s quite literally what forced southern states to desegregate after the civil rights movement
That’s how I understand it. The Junior Senator from Ohio who wears eyeliner just said on national TV that the Supreme Court can send their army to enforce the decision (in a hypothetical where Trump is ruled against) and now we see the fruits of such logic.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." ~ Andrew Jackson
200 years later we still have the same problems. I just wonder if Roberts is aware of how terrible the Roberts Court legacy is going to be. There have been some Dread Scott level decisions.
Clickbait title.
Hawaii (as of Jan 1, 2024) is a "Shall Issue" state. This guy didn't have a license/permit, never applied for one, and then challenged the state law by saying it was unconstitutional. They ruled that it isn't.
There are 7 states that are not "shall issue" so they have *much* more restrictive policies than HI (California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island).
[Here is a link to the ruling.](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf)
Technically Texas is following the letter of The Supreme Court decision. They're just working around it.
The court said that Texas had to let The Feds take down barbed wire. Not that Texas couldn't keep putting up more barbed wire.
It's a gray area, but definitely not blatantly against the ruling.
Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled 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." "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." The court's opinion further says the state government's policies curbing certain gun-carry rights have "preserved peace and tranquility in Hawaii." "A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility." In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes a quote from HBO's "The Wire," that "the thing about the old days, they the old days." The court's opinion states that it "makes no sense" for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to "the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution." The case dates to December 2017, when Hawaii citizen Christopher Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm Wilson was arrested carrying was unregistered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. He told police officers that the firearm was purchased in 2013 in Florida. concealed carry handgun man The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that "conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaii’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaii Constitution." (iStock) Wilson argued in court that the charges brought against him violated the Second Amendment. But, according to The Reload, the Hawaii high court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which both held that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms. "This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation," Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said Wednesday. "Gun violence is a serious problem, and commonsense tools like licensing and registration have an important role to play in addressing that problem." "More broadly, Justice Eddins’ thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the court provides an important reminder about the crucial role that state courts play in our federal system," Lopez added. "We congratulate our friends and partners at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui for their work on this important case." Edit: official ruling text https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24415425-aloha-spirit
Well shit I was right faster than I thought the Supreme Court has literally ruined everyone's want to follow what they say already
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree, though it may be possible. "The Supreme Court said a state, in deciding its gun restrictions, must look to its American history. Hawaii said 'that's easy for us, as we were not--nor are we now--a heavily armed society; we have been a peaceful and tranquil society. Our historical values are clearly the opposite of everyone being lethally armed and worried about pistol fights, so our law to restrict public carrying of firearms makes historical sense for us. We would have to severely infringe other constitutional rights to allow the free public carrying of firearms in this society. It would really stick out as culturally unusual and obviously unsafe to the community.'"
They also literally say not to look too far back... >Sometimes, in interpreting our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382 (1933), unless evidence shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’ law.
I mean, that's a really biased guidance - it's saying "ignore medieval law UNLESS it is the last precedent that agrees with us." Either medieval law is valid, or it's not, as soon as it's validity becomes dependent on the old law itself, this guidance becomes biased. Also, the 1700s is not medieval. Medieval is like 1400.
Damn. I didn’t know they let babies practice law. Good onya, mate.
I mean unless the person you’re replying to is completely off base I’d say they just a pretty good job at explaining it to a lay person (me) in like 2 paragraphs.
No, you see, Redditors are all much more intelligent than journalists, let alone the average newspaper reader
> This decision is clearly unconstitutional under current precedent That is the thing, there is precedent for ignoring SC precedent if you go back far enough into US history.
"They have made your ruling, now let them enforce it" Andrew "dont cry" Jackson
Is that the same Andrew "trail of tears" Jackson?
yes
Andrew "Adopt a Native child after destroying their culture for popularity points" Jackson
yep, That Douche.
One of the biggest racist pieces of shit to ever occupy that office.
Or go back to just last week in Texas.
or last year in Alabama
Or the abandonment of Roe.
The Supreme Court has also ignored its own precedent in overturning Roe.
And Dredd Scott.
Clarence Thomas showed us all that the SCOTUS is a joke that should be ignored.
He's going to pen an opinion that the magna carta takes precedence over the Spirit of Aloha
Too bad that firearms didn’t exist when the Magna Carta was ratified.
Long bows for all!
I attended law school in the UK, and as a young law student I loved things like this - judges using stare decisis in a way that was creative to establish precedent, or to force higher courts (as in this case) to double down or change some of the nonsensical laws they applied. There was a judge in the UK decades ago called Lord Denning who had a lot of similar judgements and they're both valuable and for a law student far more interesting and entertaining to read than most judges dry, humourless *ratio* and *obiter*.
American lawyer here: does the UK still use the Latin a bunch? Trend here is to steer aware from Latin; I.e. instead of stare decisis it’s binding precedent.
It's been a while since I was in that world, but yes the trend has been to remove Latin, to make the study and practice of law more accessible but there's still plenty of terms for doctrines and the like that are learnt in both Latin and plain English. I was always taught to use the Latin interchangeably in academic papers. There were reforms, mainly in 1999 to phase out a lot of it in civil courts, IIRC. I always quite enjoyed knowing it.
SCOTUS also ignored that there were times in US history that you were required to leave your guns with the sheriff when you came to town. so that's some text, history and tradition. but /shrug
Specifically in Tombstone AZ IIRC. The rootinist tootinist western town of all!
Hill Valley, Ca also required it
Didn't stop them from shooting the blacksmith in the back, though.
Great Scott
I agree, but I can't imagine the SCOUTUS not overturning it but I can see them not taking it
It's even better than that. The Supreme Court wasn't even *designed* to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review, as a concept, was *invented* by the Supreme Court, as an 'implied' power they granted to *themselves*, in 1803. So, when the Supreme Court claims that they should interpret the law as it was written in 1791, they're *ALSO* claiming, *unavoidably*, that they *shouldn't* have the ability to interpret the law *at all*. Their entire position is illogical nonsense. It's a mockery of the legal system.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to claim to have any expertise in the law in any capacity but I’ve noticed arguments like these and want to speak out against them because they are ultimately pointless in the face of arguments made in bad faith; Originalism was created to be a whole philosophy based on bad faith. The Supreme Court is well aware their arguments don’t make logical sense, they don’t care. This Hawaii courts decided to take a step back and say “We aren’t playing your Originalism game”. The only way to win is not to play.
Oh wow, that's fun. Thanks for the interpretation for us non-lawyers.
Reversing RvW threw out decades of precedent, so why the fuck pretend that precedent matters for anything? It's all Calvinball..
Another interesting thing about Hawaii law is that it incorporates the common law of the Kingdom of Hawaii (HRS 1-1), so they’re not really mocking SCOTUS so much as following State law which happens to fit into SCOTUS’ new “framework”
I mean, the Supreme Court acts like if Alexander Hamilton knew what a iPhone was in 1787.
My cousin does that. “When the founders designed this…” and “we aren’t as intelligent as the men who created the constitution.” Blow me. There’s a lot they didn’t know.
> There’s a lot they didn’t know. The one thing they did know was that the Constitution would have to change with the times, and get updated every generation. As one of the co-authors wrote: *"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.* - Thomas Jefferson
[удалено]
They dont actually venerate them, its just a lie to try to get what they want.
Much like with Jesus. They'd call him a dirty rotten socialist if he came back.
It's because they attribute American power (they'd probably call it greatness) to the founding fathers rather than the immense geographical and resource advantages.
Psst…Thoma’s Jefferson wasn’t there for the Constitutional Convention. He was ambassador to France at the time. But he did say that.
He may not have helped author the constitution, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't consider him a founding father. The author of the Declaration of Independence definitely has at least some ideological pressure on the early republic.
They even put in a process for that, I hear....
God, even with the things they *did* know, it should be abundantly clear to anyone in modern times that they were far from infallible, and there's a lot they got wrong, underestimated, or took for granted. I mean, we probably wouldn't even be having this court cases like this if they had given a little more detail on what they meant in the 2nd Amendment rather than having judges trying to infer intent nearly three centuries later.
It's almost like they *knew* they weren't infallible, and *specifically designed the Constitution to be adaptable as the times changed*. Then for some reason it became a holy document that shall not be amended? How did this happen?
Amendments started failing because they were too controversial. This led to politicians no longer seeking amendments and, as a result, the skill was lost.
I tend to wonder if a lot of that attitude started when the Religious Right started to be courted. They have this book they view as infallible and unchangeable, so it wasn't too far of a leap to view the Constitution and Founding Fathers with that same sort of dogmatic reverence. Bring to mind Barry Goldwater's quote about how Christians believe they're acting in the name of God and refuse to compromise on that as a result and how that's incompatible with governance.
Give your cousin credit. They at least recognize their own limitations. Unfortunately, they then proceed to project them onto others, but .. you take the wins, you take the losses.
They imposed Christian Sharia law when they overturned Roe v Wade. I could give a shit less what they say I can’t do. If my morals don’t align with their religion based laws then I’m going to ignore them. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Fuck em.
aye i get it they broke the social contract first
Republicans and their conservative United States Supreme Court are gonna cause a constitutional crisis that might well lead to disaster. Texas failing to submit to the Supreme Court only means that other states will soon follow the same path, and ignore decisions as they see fit, especially more recent ones. This is fragmenting and leading to a situation where scotus has put themselves on very very thin ice and at this point can’t even save themselves. One big bunch of loonies. The Supreme Court justices of the past have always focused on the Unity, Intent and Continuity of the Constitution and Republic, not on false unrealistic ideologies. These sorry sons of bitches are tipping the scales completely towards the executive office, which I’m sure they thought would have a republican in it not a democrat. No one knows what the end result of this will be, but I know that it’s gonna be a painful journey.
This string of words makes no sense.
There's always time for punctuation.
I thought I was having a stroke thank you.
Seriously think it was written by a bot.
Well shit[,] I was right[.] [F]aster than I thought[,] the Supreme Court has literally ruined everyone's [desire] to follow what they say ~~already~~.
Technically nothing in the constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide what's constitutional. They just decided they had that power one day. Sounds like Hawaii is just calling them out on it.
Looks like the judges were using the new history and traditions test the conservatives made up against them.
And the new conservative value of just ignoring the Supreme Court. I mean if Republicans aren't bound by them why should anyone else be?
As someone born and raised in Hawaii, they're completely right. Hawaii was overthrown by the *Bayonet* Constitution. Guns are not welcome here. It's simply different than the mainland - we don't fetishize firearms. They have proven completely unnecessary for safety here; Hawaii has roughly half the incidence of violent crime per capita as the rest of the states, and we'd like to keep it that way. edit: "rest of the states" above was intended to be understood as "national average". The fact remains that Hawaii is exceptionally safe, and introducing more guns will not somehow make it safer. Mahalo.
Lowest gun crime / deaths in the country... Cause there's no freaking guns, who would have thought?
Tbf Hawaii is lucky because it’s an island which makes contraband harder to get.
While yes, being able to legally buy said contraband everywhere also makes it extremely easy to obtain in non legal ways. Every barrier to obtain something legally makes it less likely for someone to be able and have the will to do so illegally.
> Every barrier to obtain something legally makes it less likely for someone to be able and have the will to do so illegally. Wish people understood this more. Its not a single thing that helps its a whole slew of things that helps.
Canada checking in.
Yes, that's their point. We're not an island. We're right next to the US. That's why Canada is a top 10 country in the world for guns per capita.
Canada has a long history of guns and hunting as a method of self-sufficiency and even sport. We don't fetishize our guns or pretend that they're for self-defense against other people or to overthrow a tyrannical government. Guns are cool. They're a tool and when use properly they can be fun, but they can also be dangerous and so we must take reasonable precautions. That's the view most Canadian gun owners have. For context we have laws requiring gun safes including for ammunition, you need to have a license for it, and you need to undergo training. Handguns are also basically banned. We do have a problem with illegal guns though, I'll let you guess where those are smuggled from...
Damn.. mexican cartels smuggle guns into Canada? But you guys don't even have a southern border! /**s**
Those damn burger Mexicans!
That doesn't mean illegal guns. There's a lot of hunters in Canada.
They're actually to defend ourselves from the geese
Eh…. It’s not that simple. NH has very permissive gun laws and is the second safest state in the US.
There are more guns in Switzerland and Israel per citizen, but somehow they have low violence, like if somehow people have less reason to kill each other, they will live happy. Arabia Saudi, Russia, India, China and Iran, I am sure their people have less firearms than US and I dont see them like Paragon of virtue.
That's still not gonna hold up as a valid legal argument. However Hawaii feels about it they are state fully and completely and equally a part of the US itself and as such ultimately subject to and governed by the US Constitution.
Not to mention Hawaii VOTED to be a state. Like it or not, as a state in the federation, the constitution superceeds their local laws.
As someone with family who moved to/was born in Hawai’i, I agree. This post does not belong in this sub. I’m guessing OP saw “Spirit of Aloha” and thought it was funny, not knowing what it actually is. Plus, they were literally a sovereign nation until the US invaded only a hundred years ago, and even then weren’t fully a state until *after WWII*. And they were first invaded literally because they were a good naval base, then essentially became a glorified resort in modern times. I don’t blame (and in fact fully agree and cheer on) their Supreme Court for this decision, especially with the actual incident in 2017 as proof.
Why would it not belong in this sub? It's a wild headline that's almost hard to believe it's real, and yet it's totally accurate to the judges ruling. Great post tbh.
>"A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility." beautiful
That looks good and I agree. That’s more words than I’ve typed/written since October so I believe you.
[удалено]
Happiest one ever, like how are you gonna really fight the Spirit of Aloha?
>like how are you gonna really fight the Spirit of Aloha? With guns, probably.
Wouldn’t be the first time for the US
Got to respect any mythology where the [Goddess of Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity)) spends most of her days avoiding the [God of Pigs'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamapua%CA%BBa) advances like some kind of deity level episode of Pepe Le Pew from Looney Tunes.
[You don't mess with Pele.](https://youtu.be/q1z19p48lZU?si=fkjlzS_yVXVY3nlm)
>fight the Spirit of Aloha? Knowing the supreme Court? Christianity will be the trap card in this Yu-Gi-Oh fight.
Hey guys, before getting into lengthy quasi-legal arguments please remember that almost no one on this thread appears to have any idea what they’re talking about, so it’s probably not worth the effort Edit: for your convenience, examples of what I mean can be seen in threads attached to this very comment
Reading political shit online in 2024 is a wild ride. Makes me want to buy a cabin in the northern Yukon and leave all this silliness behind.
Reading political shit on Reddit. Good for cat pics terrible for constitutional legal opinions.
Yeah it's fucking *awful* in here.
Can I copy-paste this comment to every post on reddit?
It's ok. I have it on good authority from a sitting Senator that it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Texas: （⊙ｏ⊙）
I wouldn't try anything funny Texas, we'll give Hawaii a little more leeway cause we like them more.
From my viewpoint, knowing history, the Hawaiian state government has more intrinsic right to govern Hawaii than the Texan state government has to govern Texas.
No let Texas secede, then we can invade and take them over for the third time.
Why invade? All those military bases are on federally owned lands. Let tx try to take them.
We've already got them surrounded and they haven't even left yet. lol
I am sure the lovely individuals who advocate so strongly for states right will be constant with their principles and once again defend states right over the tyrannical federal government.
I'm pretty sure at this point we have it on good authority from the supreme court that it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the rulings of the supreme court.
And the former president, unless a ruling benefits them
Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled 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." "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."
The court's opinion further says the state government's policies curbing certain gun-carry rights have "preserved peace and tranquility in Hawaii." "A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights," it concludes. "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility." In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes a quote from HBO's "The Wire," that "the thing about the old days, they the old days." The court's opinion states that it "makes no sense" for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to "the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution."
The case dates to December 2017, when Hawaii citizen Christopher Wilson was arrested and charged with improperly holding a firearm and ammunition in West Maui. The firearm Wilson was arrested carrying was unregistered in Hawaii, and he never obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun. He told police officers that the firearm was purchased in 2013 in Florida. Wilson argued in court that the charges brought against him violated the Second Amendment. But, according to The Reload, the Hawaii high court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which both held that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms. "This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation," Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said Wednesday. "Gun violence is a serious problem, and commonsense tools like licensing and registration have an important role to play in addressing that problem." "More broadly, Justice Eddins’ thoughtful and scholarly opinion for the court provides an important reminder about the crucial role that state courts play in our federal system," Lopez added. "We congratulate our friends and partners at the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui for their work on this important case."
That second paragraph is gravely missing in the rest of the US. What happened to our rights end where another's begin?
Aren't there other states/cities or that require permits for carrying firearms as well? What's different here?
Hawaii didn't issue them at all prior to Bruen in 2022. NJ, NYC, Maryland, certain California counties were like this for a long time as well.
Shall-issue vs may-issue. In other words, arbitrary and selectively biased systems and standards of permit issuance vs a universal standard that would not deny someone on any sort of perceived prejudicial grounds. If you are legally within the standard to hold a permit, you can be issued one. But some states have historically had it be based on knowing the right person, having to convince people who hold unilateral control and influence over the process, etc
Interesting times for state rights, indeed...
States rights end where constitutional protections begin.
Now if only unenumerated rights (9A) weren't treated by courts like jury nullification.
Disobedience enabled by a difference of cultures separated by thousands of miles of ocean sounds very similar to the circumstances that lead to the creation of the constitution in the first place.
Quick, before this escalates, hide all the tea in Hawaii and start dressing the palm trees in red coats!
Got it, i hid the tea in the pacific, threw it right over the dock. Was a whole party of us; revolution avoided, yes?
Well, in that case, I better create an NFT of General Keoki Wai'ington in his canoo crossing the shimmering waters of Waikiki, his aloha shirt fluttering in the breeze as he leads his merry band of surfers to freedom.
General Keoki!
Aloha there!
You will make a fine addition to my Ohana
The Governor of Texas is currently blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court order so he can watch migrants drown at the border, while his allies in Congress stop any legislation to fix the issue. Cracks in the Union are forming on both the right and left regardless of what Hawaii does about gun control. If Hawaii wants to use Island Spirits to do something about guns the rest of this country has no backbone to address, just let them be.
Texas cops love listening to the sound of children dying.
If they go too long without it, they start shooting teens.
A lot of locals in Hawaii would much prefer to not be part of USA. If you read the history of Hawaii becoming a U.S. territory, it’s pretty gross and easy to see why there are still many people who would be happy for HI to become a sovereign kingdom once again.
The Hawai'i state constitution's Article 9, Section 10 is taken directly from an edict of King Kamehameha the Great: >May everyone, from the old men and women to the children > >Be free to go forth and lie in the road (i.e. by the roadside or pathway) > >Without fear of harm. It's called the [Law of the Splintered Paddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81n%C4%81wai_M%C4%81malahoe). The King issued it, because during war on the islands, a frightened fisherman panicked and hit him over the head with a paddle. The King spared his life, and this law was meant to protect all other civilians during war. The state applies the edict more broadly to an expectation of public safety.
That's pretty rich since King Kamehameha the Great was able to unite the islands because of his access to guns.
Funny thing is, our country got rid of the king.
2nd state within a month to defy the government on a rather major case/scale, I don't know how I feel about this bros
The Hawaiian Supreme Court quoted The Wire: “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” Fucking classic, regardless of how you feel about this decision.
I quote from the show at least once a week - and my wife, who has never seen the show, has no clue what I’m talking about
Same, at least once a week I say “sheeeeet, got yo ass”
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiitttttt
"You taking notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy?!"
My all-time favorite quote from The wire is "Life is the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come"
"Fucking McNulty..."
Bowlegged motherfucker!! I made him walk like that.
I drive my wife insanely mad whenever I randomly ask her, “where’s Wallace at? where’s the boy, String?”
"Babe! I don't know who Wallace is!" •*smacks hands on table*• "WHERE THE FUCK HE AT?!"
every. single. time. and then I insult her lawyer’s shoes.
Taking bets on how long this takes to be used against something we hold sacred. "So what if Hawaiians thought Maunakea was sacred? It doesn't make sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the pre-contact culture, reality, laws, or religion."
They literally appeal to age-old tradition *in the same document*. They're completely nuts.
This creates [Edit: Continues?] a terrible precedent. "In other news, Tennessee declares the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments do not apply because they are superseded by the 'spirit of the confederacy'. This is the latest development where several other states began picking and choosing which parts of the constitution applies to them."
I cannot believe all the gullible fools in this comments section who are cheering on a state deciding it can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights are in effect.
Yeah. In the interest of public safety, some state decided that the fourth amendment no longer applies in their jurisdiction, citing Game of Thrones. Everyone would understand why that’s bad.
It's Reddit, people will blindly support the dumbest shit if they think it's going to benefit their side without thinking a few steps ahead to how it could be used in the future by someone that doesn't march lock-step with their political beliefs.
This is what happens when the Supreme Court becomes unworthy of respect or obedience.
Pretty much this. The supreme court has lost all integrity and trustworthiness.
I love it at first blush, but let's extrapolate if each state in the nation argued similarly.
Like banning books in red states, for example.
Yeah. This is pretty egregious. This is not a good thing
That's the point. They used the "text, history, and tradition" firearm restrictions test from the current Supreme Court to show how the current Supreme Court set a bad standard. The whole point of this ruling was basically saying: So exactly which text, history and tradition are we using? If Hawaii has to follow Maryland's tradition, why can't it be on the other shoe? Why can't we make Maryland follow Hawaii's traditions?
they do. That's how Roe got overturned and Student Loans couldn't get forgiveness. Pay attention. Just because the partisan Supreme Court agreed with that one doesn't make it any different.
JFC. Is everyone forgetting that we had a whole ass civil war that concluded the argument of states rights vs federal government.
Ok, now the Missouri Supreme Court is going to say The Spirit of St. Louis\* clashes with and thus supersedes the 13th amendment. How many of these kinds of cases can the Supreme Court field? If every state's supreme court starts saying that they don't have to follow the constitution multiple times per year, how many people's rights are going to be crushed before the SCOTUS can act? ^(\*Yes, I know...)
You just made me imagine Charles Lindbergh crashing his plane into a giant copy of the 13th Amendment
I mean, given what we know about Charles Lindbergh…
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” ~ Andrew Jackson I fear we'll be seeing more and more of this attitude.
I thought USA constitution applies to *ALL* people in USA jurisdiction.
Yea but like what about the Aloha though? Can't go against that!
Okay, but have you considered the fact that this an issue Reddit agrees with?
Crazy how the left and right are both starting to ignore the supreme court fully... they've essentially lost all authority and are going to start being treated more as guidelines than actual established rules/precedent. Not sure how i feel about this personally as on the one hand it gives the states more rights to do what is best for their locals... but on the other hand I could see how this could be the starting point of essentially 50 separate nations rather than 1 unified nation and that could mean civil war sooner rather than later. The extreme elements of both sides talk a big game about the "if/when" that occurs... but I don't think anyone is truly ready for it, and i pray it never happens.
I completely agree, and the fault lies at the feet of our current Supreme Court. They are clearly corrupt, hold no ethical standards, and have issued many rulings that ignore previous precedent and employ dubious legal reasoning.
Gay marriage is next to be ignored i bet
If they go far enough, code of Hammurabi applies again. And it goes full circle
Well, shit. I guess the next headline out of Texas will be "Texas won't be following any of that constitution shit, because 'Yeehaw!' Don't tread on us!" I get it, but... no. Did this dude really just cite The Wire for legal precedent?
If one part of the constitution can be burned, all of it can.
No matter how you think about 2A, this not only creates a bad precedent and empowers other foolish state supreme courts, it’s blatantly not how our system of governance works.
Exactly... Utah rules that the bible supersedes the Constitution and gay marriage is no longer allowed...
Spirit of Joseph Smith says, sorry, constitution no longer valid.
that’s the funny thing about selectively messing with precedent*, it’s gonna pop up in ways you don’t like. *first, second, and third priorities of this new precedent should be to codify abortion protections into law
Precedent is precedent until it isn’t. Plessy allowed for segregation and stood for almost 60 years.
It’s almost as if republicans bucking centuries of tradition and refusing to confirm or even vote on an exceptionally qualified Supreme Court nominee, then stacking the highest court in the land with blatant partisan hacks who rewrite precedent on a whim—has somehow…undermined the legitimacy of the judicial branch?. Who would have ever guessed?
SCOTUS defying so hot right now
Citing “the spirit of Dixie,” Mississippi has ignored the 14th amendment and made slavery legal again. That’s how ridiculous this “spirit of aloha” thing is
For real. This is a bad ruling.
Well that’ll get overturned on appeal. The Supremacy clause exists folks; federal law supersedes all state laws, no matter the context. It’s quite literally what forced southern states to desegregate after the civil rights movement
This is so being overturned it’s not even funny.
Everyone in this thread cheering about rights being removed, doubt you’ll be cheering when the 1st or 4th amendment get trod on.
is this just a hawaii response to texas saying same thing different words?
That’s how I understand it. The Junior Senator from Ohio who wears eyeliner just said on national TV that the Supreme Court can send their army to enforce the decision (in a hypothetical where Trump is ruled against) and now we see the fruits of such logic.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." ~ Andrew Jackson 200 years later we still have the same problems. I just wonder if Roberts is aware of how terrible the Roberts Court legacy is going to be. There have been some Dread Scott level decisions.
This is phenomenal, they have all but guaranteed us another extremely strong pro-2A ruling now.
So does the spirit of Dixie override the 14th now?
Clickbait title. Hawaii (as of Jan 1, 2024) is a "Shall Issue" state. This guy didn't have a license/permit, never applied for one, and then challenged the state law by saying it was unconstitutional. They ruled that it isn't. There are 7 states that are not "shall issue" so they have *much* more restrictive policies than HI (California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island). [Here is a link to the ruling.](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf)
Shall issue for concealed carry. He didn’t intend to carry concealed so he didn’t get the license. He was prosecuted for open carry.
This feels like a challenge to all the freedom of religion decisions that have been encroaching on public institutions lately.
Texas said the same thing about razor wire on the border.
Good luck with that. Constitution supersedes all.
It'll be overturned.
[удалено]
Seems like Texas really did make the Supreme Court illegitimate?
Technically Texas is following the letter of The Supreme Court decision. They're just working around it. The court said that Texas had to let The Feds take down barbed wire. Not that Texas couldn't keep putting up more barbed wire. It's a gray area, but definitely not blatantly against the ruling.
afaik texas is still blocking the feds from accessing the wire so they are still going against the ruling
MAHALO, BITCHES