(NY Post) – The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday formally infringing on island residents’ right to keep and bear arms because justices claimed guns interfered with the “Spirit of Aloha.” The ruling seeks to nullify not only the authority of the Consitution but also the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of Americans’ Second Amendment protections.
The declaration was made in a decision ruling that a man charged with carrying a firearm without a permit in the state back in 2017 could still be held criminally for that infraction despite a recent Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, that ruled that New York’s concealed-carry application system was unconstitutional.
Its decision was based on the Court’s interpretation of Article I, Section 17 of Hawaii’s constitution, which “mirrors the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
“We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawai’i there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public,” began the Court at the top of its opinion before going on to assert that “the spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
They continued:
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 Government’s interest in reducing firearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved peace and tranquility in Hawai’i. A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other other constitutional rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility. Laws regulating firearms in public preserve ordered liberty and advance these rights. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under Article I, Section 17. So there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense.
It is unclear to what legal principle the Court’s reference to the “spirit of Aloha” appeals to.
The Hawaii Supreme Court referenced the island’s history as an independent kingdom, as well as the dramatic improvement in firearm capacity since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, to justify its ruling. It wrote: “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 power-and-ramrod muskets were not exactly useful to colonial era mass murders. And life is a bit different now, in a nation with a lot more people, stretching to islands in the Pacific Ocean.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held what the Constitution obviously says: That Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. In D.C. vs. Heller (2008), they plainly stated this is an individual right, not a “collective right” (whatever that is). In McDonald vs. Chicago (2010), they held that his right applies to the states. In New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen (2020), they ruled that this right covers the public possession of handguns.
But Hawaii’s court ignores all that. Hawaii’s rejection wasn’t backed by philosophical reasoning or a profound understanding of the law. Rather, it was rooted in a quote about the “old days” from the HBO television drama series “The Wire.”: “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” Literally, that’s in the opinion.
The court also cites foreign laws, and Hawaii’s laws when it was still an independent kingdom, neither of which have any bearing on the state’s current laws or its obligations under the Constitution.
In fact, the Hawaii Supreme Court essentially declares the entire Constitution null and void in their state, writing: “As the world turns, it makes no sense for society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.”
The Hawaii court’s scrutiny of the Supreme Court for “handpick[ing] history to make its own rules” didn’t stop at guns. It also included a jab at “the Dobbs majority” for using “historical fiction” to repeal Roe v. Wade in 2022.
There’s no doubt that the activist Hawaii court’s Feb. 7 decision sets a dangerous precedent. The justices’ blatant disregard for the superiority of the Supreme Court and the Constitution not only poses a grave threat to Americans’ rights. But, if left unchecked, it could easily inspire other blue states that disagree with the nation’s founding principles to defy much more than the Second Amendment.
