Law 2nd Amendment Doesn't Exist in Hawaii Because of "Aloha Spirit"

So, there was a case in Hawaii about open carrying a handgun (since Hawaii refuses to issue Concealed Carry Permits to mere plebs) . The lower appellate court ordered a dismissal of charges and the state appealed. The state supreme court issued a ruling that says the Heller and Bruen decisions the US Supreme Court don't actually apply because, and I wish I was kidding here, the "Aloha Spirit" and then they quoted the TV show The Wire character Slim Charles who said "the thing about the old days, they the old days." Seriously.

The entire decision reads like something Ketanji Brown would come up with. It's amazing. You don't even need to be a lawyer to read this one, but being a moron helps.

https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

Pretty sure their ancestors open carried javelins.

Nah, those were for medium range use in massed battle. Personal self defense was a war club lined with shark's teeth. Or if you were poor like, 95% of the population, your canoe paddle or digging stick did double duty.

 

[AnotherPleb]

This is the sort of thing even Roberts is going to have to smack down unless he wants "his" court to look weak and impotent.

His court has looked weak since at least 2020.

 

[UnKillFill]

Nah, those were for medium range use in massed battle. Personal self defense was a war club lined with shark's teeth. Or if you were poor like, 95% of the population, your canoe paddle or digging stick did double duty.

Pretty sure I remember seeing a documentary about Hawaiian warriors using sports balls as weapons of war...

Spoiler

 

[dustbuster]

Unfortunately, some of the statements they made are pretty damning.
View attachment 5708053View attachment 5708054
They literally outright ignore Bruen, and later on go "No no, its a collective militia right to bear arms, not an individual one" directly contrary to Bruen. The Supremes have to take it, especially since they also cite Stevens' dissent from Heller all over the place.
View attachment 5708083
Yeah, this was a direct shot at Bruen and Heller both:
View attachment 5708097View attachment 5708106
SCOTUS has to hammer these fuckers hard. This is the sort of thing even Roberts is going to have to smack down unless he wants "his" court to look weak and impotent.

I could keep going on and on, but I think you all get the idea. Shit, they even mention Dobbs as an instance of SCOTUS overreaching its bounds.

You're preaching to the choir, you really are, but the actual facts of the case involve a defendant who broke a law that was NOT overturned by Bruen (carry without a permit).
He wasn't suing to get a permit, and bruen never instituted constitutional carry, so there's nothing in this defendant's case worth challenging, hyperbolic posturing aside.
NOW: If this "precedent" gets used to pass laws that violate Bruen, then a plaintiff suing should be able to get it crushed, but otherwise I would give it 50/50 at best, maybe as low as 30/60 this gets taken up on a docket already flooded with the bullshit they're pushing on Trump.

I'm thinking a best case scenario would be a shadow-docket ruling saying "no, bruen still applies, but yes, this guy stays in jail"

 

[Every One Procedural]

A particularly enlightening part of this is located starting at Page 43, where they mention the weapons laws of King Kamehameha III. According to their source, circa 1833, Kamehameha III declared that anyone found in possession of a knife, sword-cane, or "any other dangerous weapon" would have said weapon(s) seized by the state, and whoever was caught with them would either be fined or lashed. They bring this up, I suppose, as a historical precedent for draconian weapons laws in Hawaii? It's a strange inclusion due to its total irrelevance to contemporary American law, and it almost feels like something akin to a Freudian slip.

 

[Snekposter]

You're preaching to the choir, you really are, but the actual facts of the case involve a defendant who broke a law that was NOT overturned by Bruen (carry without a permit).
He wasn't suing to get a permit, and bruen never instituted constitutional carry, so there's nothing in this defendant's case worth challenging, hyperbolic posturing aside.
NOW: If this "precedent" gets used to pass laws that violate Bruen, then a plaintiff suing should be able to get it crushed, but otherwise I would give it 50/50 at best, maybe as low as 30/60 this gets taken up on a docket already flooded with the bullshit they're pushing on Trump.

I'm thinking a best case scenario would be a shadow-docket ruling saying "no, bruen still applies, but yes, this guy stays in jail"

He wasn't charged with the carrying laws specifically, but this one and this one. They're NYC-style laws that prohibit the transportation of firearms except under very narrow circumstances, and the carry license law is a provision that grants the license holder an exemption.

Now, granted, its looking like this dude was a common criminal out to rob someone given the circumstances in which the cops found him packing (trespassing on someone else's place of business with a firearm purchased in someone else's name with no record of transfer), but that doesn't mean Hawaii's laws necessarily pass constitutional muster. Had the Hawaiian court just said "Bruen says carry permits are fine, get fucked" it would have been no issue. Unfortunately they've gone full retard and outright stated Bruen simply doesn't apply in Hawaii because reasons. Which of course gives the man immediate grounds for a writ of certiorari instead of his lawyer telling him to drop it and take the L and enjoy prison.

Now, that said, you're almost certainly right about what will happen. SCOTUS smacks down Hawaii but also sends his ass to prison. Unfortunately for them SCOTUS will probably take up the issue of their carry law since it is a may issue law instead of shall issue as mandated by Bruen. The Hawaiian court tried to split it out but SCOTUS will argue that its mandatory to include it in their opinion since it is directly referenced by those other two laws as a specific exemption and as such cannot be disregarded when it comes to the constitutionality of those two other laws.

TL;DR they declare the ruling fake and gay, say the man was illegally carrying due to the complete lack of any permit application whatsoever, but also declare the permitting law a Bruen violation and order Hawaii change it to a shall issue one.

 

[dustbuster]

Now, that said, you're almost certainly right about what will happen. SCOTUS smacks down Hawaii but also sends his ass to prison. Unfortunately for them SCOTUS will probably take up the issue of their carry law since it is a may issue law instead of shall issue as mandated by Bruen. The Hawaiian court tried to split it out but SCOTUS will argue that its mandatory to include it in their opinion since it is directly referenced by those other two laws as a specific exemption and as such cannot be disregarded.

I hope you're right, but Roberts and ACB have taken leave of their senses and been "staying" legit strike-downs of "laws" passed by the ATF in violation of article 1 (ignoring the 2A implications).
Same with their refusal to crack the whip on the 7th circuit regarding Ill Annoyed's AWB.

 

[Snekposter]

I hope you're right, but Roberts and ACB have taken leave of their senses and been "staying" legit strike-downs of "laws" passed by the ATF in violation of article 1 (ignoring the 2A implications).
Same with their refusal to crack the whip on the 7th circuit regarding Ill Annoyed's AWB.

Thing is there isn't just 2A implications here but Supremacy Clause and 14th ones, or you know, nullification. You can't have state courts declare entire SCOTUS cases irrelevant on the basis of "muh state feels" and "muh state constitution". Ken Paxton might go and petition the Texas courts to declare Miller invalid using Hawaii's reasoning and that would sure be interesting as fuck considering that case's jurisprudence is about as terrible as Roe v. Wade's.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Pretty sure I remember seeing a documentary about Hawaiian warriors using sports balls as weapons of war...

Spoiler

View attachment 5708331

My favorite ancient Hawaiian myth is the one about a giant space whale.

 

[TowinKarz]

The "history" the USSC cited in Bruen was also pretty clearly the history of the United States as it was established and run from independence onward.

It did and does not include prior native laws and customs in that test.

Hawaii might as well cite the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta or the Declarations of Rights of Man and Citizen - they're important bits of history and legal theory, but they aren't relevant to the Bruen test as they all predate the USA.

Once you fall under US jurisdiction? Your legal history prior to it becomes an academic curiosity as far as arguing precedent of anything in court.

 

[Niggernerd]

I don't think tito can stop a high velocity round

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

A particularly enlightening part of this is located starting at Page 43, where they mention the weapons laws of King Kamehameha III. According to their source, circa 1833, Kamehameha III declared that anyone found in possession of a knife, sword-cane, or "any other dangerous weapon" would have said weapon(s) seized by the state, and whoever was caught with them would either be fined or lashed. They bring this up, I suppose, as a historical precedent for draconian weapons laws in Hawaii? It's a strange inclusion due to its total irrelevance to contemporary American law, and it almost feels like something akin to a Freudian slip.

No, it was completely intentional. To put it into terms, when you incorporate another nation wholesale into your own, the values don't shift overnight, or often even after a long time. There was a reason why colonial expansion was such a controversial political issue in the 1890-1900s within the United States. People understood then that picking up a colonial empire would change the values, faith and racial and cultural make-up of the nation doing it, much like how the migration issue is today.

The values of the Kingdom of Hawaii were not the ones of the American Founding Fathers, and to an extent still aren't. In my opinion, they shouldn't be. To be frank, my people, the Hawaiians, are not as equipped to handle the level of individual responsibility and liberty that the American Founders thought the birthright of their White European citizens. That's not to say I'm a liberal or, God help us, a Marxist, but a strong hand and deference to collective traditional mores is needed to flourish. That said, I disagree with the weapons bans as they stand in the state of Hawaii. Too many people here rely on hunting, and the laws of the Kingdom were not meant to bar self-defense of one's home, more that rowdies couldn't take weapons out to the bars or settle scores in the public streets.

My favorite ancient Hawaiian myth is the one about a giant space whale.

I prefer the flying vagina used to lure away the pig god from raping the volcano goddess.

https://mythus.fandom.com/wiki/Kapo

 

[PeachDream]

Kamehameha and Ka-hakuʻi paddled to Papaʻi and on to Keaʻau in Puna where some men and women were fishing, and a little child sat on the back of one of the men. Seeing them about to go away, Kamehameha leaped from his canoe intending to catch and kill the men, but they all escaped with the women except two men who stayed to protect the man with the child. During the struggle Kamehameha caught his foot in a crevice of the rock and was stuck fast; and the fishermen beat him over the head with a paddle. Had it not been that one of the men was hampered with the child and their ignorance that this was Kamehameha with whom they were struggling, Kamehameha would have been killed that day. This quarrel was named Ka-lele-iki, and from the striking of Kamehameha’s head with a paddle came the law of Mamala-hoe (Broken paddle) for Kamehameha.

The hell am I reading?

The king of Hawaii just happened to see some dude fishing with his kid and decided to kill him?
Then he got bashed on the head before continuing to write laws?

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

The hell am I reading?

The king of Hawaii just happened to see some dude fishing with his kid and decided to kill him?
Then he got bashed on the head before continuing to write laws?

Yep. Before Kamehameha, it was the prerogative of the ruling caste to kill their "serfs" for whatever reason, to stay in practice for war, or because you were pissed off for an unrelated reason. After this happened, he realized it was kind of fucked up and made a law prohibiting the practice.
Look man, it was a pre-Christian neolithic society on the Malthusian edge with constant war and wholesale bloodshed. Life was really fucking cheap and infanticide rife.

 

[Snekposter]

The "history" the USSC cited in Bruen was also pretty clearly the history of the United States as it was established and run from independence onward.

It did and does not include prior native laws and customs in that test.

Hawaii might as well cite the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta or the Declarations of Rights of Man and Citizen - they're important bits of history and legal theory, but they aren't relevant to the Bruen test as they all predate the USA.

Once you fall under US jurisdiction? Your legal history prior to it becomes an academic curiosity as far as arguing precedent of anything in court.

Magna Carta was cited by the California Supreme Court regarding the appointment of trained judges in criminal trials.

But I'm willing to let that slide since Magna Carta is a foundational part of the Common Law system, which the USA uses a variant of.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

The only reason Hawaii ended up a state and not still a territory like Puerto Rico was the Cold War. DC figured it would be legally easier to to invoke Article V of the NATO treaty if it was hit by the Soviets or CCP. It's the same reason Alaska was rushed through the statehood process. It's the whole Article VI part that specifies the Europe and North America as covered under the treaty that means Hawaii may or may not be covered. Making it an actual state could tip the scales in favor of NATO getting involved should the Cold War have gone hot.

@mindlessobserver

I know less about this than both of you, but Hawaii also has a large Yankee population. About a fifth. Puerto Rico supposedly has about 17%, but mostly Spanish? At any rate, Hawaii already had a long experience of Anglos moving in as China trade merchants, whalers and plantation owners/managers before they couped the government. I don't know that Puerto Rico ever had that (could be wrong).

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

Yep. Before Kamehameha, it was the prerogative of the ruling caste to kill their "serfs" for whatever reason, to stay in practice for war, or because you were pissed off for an unrelated reason. After this happened, he realized it was kind of fucked up and made a law prohibiting the practice.
Look man, it was a pre-Christian neolithic society on the Malthusian edge with constant war and wholesale bloodshed. Life was really fucking cheap and infanticide rife.

Hmm Hawaii moving back to a turbo violent absolute monarchy would be hilarious if the retards get their way.

I'd honestly pay to see the results.

That and the inevitable Chinese or SEA colonization and resultant military dictatorship. See Indonesia in Papua New Guinea for an example of that.

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

Hmm Hawaii moving back to a turbo violent absolute monarchy would be hilarious if the retards get their way.

I'd honestly pay to see the results.

That and the inevitable Chinese or SEA colonization and resultant military dictatorship. See Indonesia in Papua New Guinea for an example of that.

If suddenly the cargo ships stopped, we have about two weeks worth of food and a month of oil for power. In a collapse situation, I fully expect Oahu/Honolulu to look like Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" in a very short span of time. This island is nothing but concrete, asphalt, too many people and sheer mountains. It's legit something that keeps me up at nights.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

I prefer the flying vagina used to lure away the pig god from raping the volcano goddess.

When the Hawaiians dream of a woman without a vagina it is Kapo. Unless a medium possessed by Kapo wears a ti leaf protection she is in danger of having this part of her body torn at.

I have finally found something weirder than Old Man Coyote's penis damming a river.

 

[LeChampion1992]

The aloha spirit isn't the reason Hawaii doesn't have guns it's the fact that Hawaii is a corrupt kleptocracy that is kept afloat by tourism and government spending. It's properties are overpriced and the elite hate their populace with a passion. They believe common people owning guns = super scary because they know their power is built on lies. I'm not talking about the US government but the original kingdom of Hawaii which had made it illegal to carry a blade on your person.