Hawaii might be the picture of paradise with swaying palm trees and sugar-sand beaches. Beyond the postcard-worthy landscapes, though, there’s a troubling trend by state officials to write Second Amendment freedoms out of the island state. In Hawaii, lawmakers are taking the approach that Second Amendment rights are a problem to be tamped down and not a freedom to celebrate.

It’s almost as if Hawaiian lawmakers are working to re-establish a kingdom in the island state, one where the U.S. Constitution is a suggestion and not the law of the land.

Hawaii’s Gov. Josh Green signed the law that bans the sale, ownership, possession or controlling of ammunition by adults under the age of 21. The bill, Senate Bill 2845, would essentially eliminate Second Amendment rights for adults in Hawaii who are vested in the full spectrum of their civil rights.

‘Public Good’

The law carves out exceptions for adults under 21 who are actively engaged in hunting or target shooting or are going to or from a place of hunting or target shooting. Missing from that exception, of course, is the critical and lawful use of firearms and ammunition for self-defense.

“So, we didn’t outlaw a child touching ammo, just the purchase part of it,” said state Sen. Glenn Wakai, who authored the bill. “Hard for you to manufacture a bullet, right? So if we could take that part out of the equation, then I think there’s still a public good there.”

If “public good” means eliminating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, then Hawaii’s doing a bang-up job.

“Free speech, free religion, living a peaceful life in freedom without a tyrannical government, what protects those rights is our Second Amendment,”  said Hawaii state Rep. Diamond Garcia to media. “We the people have the power, and our weapons ensure that government will never be superior to us.”

He’s not alone in his criticism of what is clearly an unconstitutional law. The state Office of the Public Defender has stated the law is in conflict with the historical traditions of firearm regulations, especially given the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen holding. They’re right.

In written testimony earlier this year, the office argued that criminalizing possession or control of a firearm for anyone under 21 years of age “means that young people are categorically banned from carrying firearms for self-defense purposes,” according to media reports.

“This ban runs afoul with the Supreme Court’s decisions about the Second Amendment, making it ripe for challenge by the defense bar if prosecutors intend on using the statute and gun activists in the civil arena,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

Hawaii’s Second Amendment Angst

Proponents of the law argued it is in keeping with Hawaii’s law that prohibits the sale of all firearms to adults under 21 – setting up an age-based gun ban. That is just one of the many gun control laws that makes Hawaii one of the strictest when it comes to gun control. Hawaii requires mandatory training to purchase a firearm, a permit-to-purchase a handgun that includes fingerprints, a photograph and mental health release waivers. It also requires universal background checks, mandates a 14-20 day waiting period to take possession of a firearm after purchase, requires firearms be registered with the state and bans “assault pistols” and standard-capacity magazines.

Hawaii’s antipathy toward Second Amendment rights is hardly a surprise. It’s not just the state legislature of the governor’s office that feels that way. Hawaii’s Supreme Court essentially brushed off the Second Amendment and relegated it to a second-class right earlier this year.

Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled against Christopher Wilson, who claimed the state violated his Second Amendment rights after he was charged with carrying a loaded gun without a concealed weapons permit. The state Supreme Court ruled that Wilson couldn’t use the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen to argue his “constitutional right to protect himself” because he is not a “well-regulated militia” and he didn’t apply for the concealed carry permit.

‘Spirit of Aloha’

“When the Hawaiʻi Constitution was first ratified, courts throughout the nation’s history had always interpreted and applied the Second Amendment with the militia-centric view,” the court wrote. “This was what everyone thought.”

Except that’s not true. Jordan Boyd, writing for The Federalist, pointed out, “The first line of the Hawaii court’s firearm ruling acknowledges that ‘Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution’ in affirming ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’”

Further, The U.S. Supreme Court clarified that with the landmark 2008 Heller decision that affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, just as are the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” the court wrote. “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.”

In that statement, Hawaii’s Supreme Court put the laws and traditions of Hawaii above that of those of the United States – the union of states to which it belongs. Oddly, to justify this, Hawaii’s Supreme Court didn’t rely on judicial precedent, but leaned on pop culture to the point of including a quote from the HBO series “The Wire.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution,” the justices wrote. ‘The thing about the old days, they the old days.’”

The old days – it seems to Hawaii’s courts, lawmakers and governor – is back to a time when Hawaii was ruled by a monarch and not by the U.S. Constitution.

 

—Michael Findlay, Courtesy of NSSF

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

39 COMMENTS

  1. You know, it’s horrible what we did to Hawaii. We should grant them freedom from our oppression. Same with Guam and Puerto Rico.

    Evacuate US citizens and let them have their land back.

    • The issue with that is the same as the reason that Japan attacked it. We have interests and allies in the Far East, and those places are a very long way from San Diego, while Hawaii is halfway there.

      • Close all of our bases. No foreign entanglements. Say Aloha to this gas station in the middle of the Pacific. Let them fend for themselves from now on.

        • Ah, a typical isolationist. It isn’t Hawaii that is at risk, it is every country that borders the South China Sea, plus Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan who is threatened by Chinese imperialism. Armed or not, they do not have the population to withstand Chinese aggression. To say nothing of the massive amount of international trade that plys those waters. You must understand that China has the desire and is working on gaining the ability to strangle the US economy, which it cannot do while we are still there. Isolationism in the face of Chinese imperialism is a death sentence for America,

          • Chinese imperialism will work about as well as it has for any other imperialist country. Throughout history giant imperial empires collapse – mostly due to the costs of maintaining that imperial footprint. Funding our global military presence is requiring us to steal money from our grandkids. Let the Chinese choke on their own largesse.

          • Not an Isoolationist…..A Realist.

            We are Broke, US Federal Debt is $105,000++ for every Man, Woman& Child in the country. Time to stop the freebies. Japan, Korea and other US “friends” in Asia are actually competitors just like China.

      • Historical Analogies Confirm the Roots of Discrimination run deep in Gun Control. In other words when democRats turn to Gun Control they Turn to the Agenda of racists and nazis. Unless the forum’s usual suspects can debunk the aforementioned I suggest they stfu and move along…TRUMP/VANCE 2024…
        https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&feature=shared

    • And within a week the Islands will be “under new management” by a group that has a red flag with gold stars. They already have an “ancient map” to prove their prior claim.

  2. IMO you either abide by the human rights fully enforced and recognized by the Constitution, or you can hit the road.

    Secession? Sure, but why don’t we go one step further and kick Hawaii out of the union, and give the statehood to Puerto Rico (or Guam?)?

    In all seriousness, let the have a referendum to decide. One or the other, you can’t have statehood without Constitutional guarantees for the American people residing there.

    • That’s exactly what I said but my comment got moderated. Apparently saying that we should say Aloha to this Banana Republic is not allowed.

  3. “Hard for you to manufacture a bullet, right?”

    I started reloading at 18 and not being able to purchase handgun ammunition at Big Box Stores was definitely a factor.

  5. I seem to recall that there was a case, what was it now? Oh yeah, McDonald v. Chicago. Held that the 2A is incorporated in all of the states; therefore Supreme Court decisions under the 2A are binding on state courts. The Hawaii Constitution states is therefore not determinative. I also have this recollection that all courts are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court under the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Why is McDonald nowhere mentioned in these decisions?

    • Could the to-ing and fro-ing of lawyers enabled by such legal detritus be generating kickbacks for the “progressive” authors?

  6. We need to say Aloha to this false state that should have never been invited to join the union. They are a gas station for the US Navy and a bunch of beaches and casino resorts for rich spoiled socialites. It’s basically Cuba but further away and in the Pacific and not just off Florida in the Atlantic. Say Aloha to these fools and let them defend themselves against China. Not one more cent should go there from the USA.

  8. Isn’t this a sort of nothingburger? There is no penalty for blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws. As noted long ago, every violation must be squashed, one lawsuit at a time, forever. And when one unconstitutional gun control law is over turned, another one will take its place, in the same jurisdiction (see NY enactment of new unconstitutional concealed carry law within days of “Bruen”).

    Even if the SC declared 2A to be absolute, lawfare would continue; a “catch me if you can” proposition.

    • Easy solution. Instead of trying to prosecute traitorous deniers of people’s Constitutional rights, just withhold all federal funding and subsidies until the state gets its laws back in line with the Constitution.

      • “…just withhold all federal funding and subsidies until the state gets its laws back in line with the Constitution.”

        Good idea, but who enacts it, who enforces it?

  9. “it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution”

    Bullshit. The forces of nature and the mechanics of tyranny and oppression have not changed.

    The gadgets have changed aspects quantitatively, but the basic terrain is unchanged.

    • Self-evident and Fundamental Human Rights don’t change. If anything they become even more expansive, not less.

  10. Don’t go saying it has other freedoms.

    There are now tourist fees and restrictions on when tourists can visit beaches now.

    Tourists are not considered Americans any longer.

    • Its the other way, Hawaiians don’t consider themselves true Amercians and view mainland US tourists as foreigners. Even the navel bases warn their personal to be very careful around the locals. Hawaii also has many social issues that I can’t say here.

  11. Most Hawaiians are Democrats, their family members conspired with and spied for the Japanese providing much needed intelligence used in the Pearl Harbor attack so are any of us surprised they vote overwhelmingly for such tyrants?

    • It is reasonable that if Crooks could maintain his balance and fire multiple shots with a rifle while perched on the slanted roof, that others could have been placed up there for security.

      “That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside,” she said.
      They couldn’t go on the roof for safety reasons, but others can and did. Makes perfect illogical sense.

      Safety harnesses etc must not fit or be available to the SS agents.

      The Director basically said, we’ll secure the “inside” of the building, but the roof is on it’s own.
      That in and of itself seems like a huge lack of failure to take full responsibility for the security measures necessary to secure the entire(100%) of the building and venue area. As my mom used to say, some people do “at” things and fail to do the whole thing. Clearly the SS did at the job of security.
      There were several easy ways to secure the entire(roof included) building, yet the SS Director chose to secure from the “inside”

      Is the SS that feeble!

  16. BREAKING NEWS: MAJOR “LOSS” IN FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPON BAN CASE…. OR IS IT?

    The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the 2A plaintiffs had failed to establish a basis for a preliminary injunction enjoining DE’s “assault weapon” ban. But there is some interesting movements in this case worth noting. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCJWemevL6Q

  19. The View’s Joy Behar Says 20-Year-Old White Men Buying 50 Rounds Should Be Reported (note: typical left wing liberal mental illness view that all should be ‘persecuted’ because one or some commit criminal acts. Maybe we should start doing that for the 1st amendment, a person or persons commit criminal acts on line by use of computers, then all those who buy a computer should get reported and denied their first amendment rights – then maybe we would not have this old hag being held together with makeup on national TV letting us all know how mentally ill she is in her stupid view points.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-fjYbrAJqM

Comments are closed.