Post by: aletheuo137 on February 08, 2024, 05:17:28 AM
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: Wchiro on February 08, 2024, 08:53:10 AM
Post by: oldfart on February 08, 2024, 08:57:46 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/g20pqFsZ/kamehameha.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 09:04:16 AM
Open-Carry
(https://i.postimg.cc/g20pqFsZ/kamehameha.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
That's pretty funny.
Especially since it's right outside the supreme court.
Post by: oldfart on February 08, 2024, 09:21:56 AM
That's pretty funny.==========
Especially since it's right outside the supreme court.
Ironic, huh?
I think I made my POINT.
:rofl:
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 08, 2024, 09:32:39 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 09:39:57 AM
Maybe a sharp stick is all we're gonna get here in the banana republik.
Depends on what you say when HPD arrest you for having one. If it's sole purpose is to cause bodily injury then it's a deadly weapon under current law. If you say its for fishing, and it's used to harm someone, then it's diverted from it's intended purpose of fishing and now a deadly weapon under HI law.
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 08, 2024, 10:13:14 AM
Open-CarryWalk lightly and carry a big stick!
(https://i.postimg.cc/g20pqFsZ/kamehameha.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: Stack_Xchange on February 08, 2024, 10:47:10 AM
It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.
I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 10:57:35 AM
Interesting opinion...
It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.
I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.
Post by: Stack_Xchange on February 08, 2024, 11:08:40 AM
please show me where a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights"...
Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.
If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 11:14:31 AM
Hawaiians never went through
the Revolutionary war,
didn't create the US Constitution and all it's Amendments over time,
didn't participate in the Civil War,
never lived through the push for Manifest Destiny,
didn't deal with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement,
didn't have to endure the KKK (the REAL racists who would kill non-whites, not the current "every White person is racist" BS),
The Great Depression and the aftermath,
the destruction of the nuclear family by government policies and social deviants,
and on and on ....
Hawaii's history is not the same as the mainland's. They never gained the appreciation for self defense and our "gun culture", because they have always been under a monarch until they became a state.
I wonder how the state courts interpret the battles fought to unite the islands under one ruler? Is that the "Aloha" they refer to? :wacko:
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 11:15:50 AM
I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
That's not how rights work. In fact, that's the reason we have rights in the first place. To protect things that other people object to. Just because someone doesn't like it, that's on them, not on you.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 11:21:49 AM
Interesting opinion...
It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.
I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.
When it comes to the 2a, there is no balance. The left is trying to take it all. But since they cannot do it all at once, they are doing little by little. This is why the 2a must be thought of as an "absolute". Law makers even say they made compromises for the anti 2a bills. We got nothing in return, so it's more of a shit sandwich and instead of having to eat the entire thing, we only have to eat half. That isn't a compromise.
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 11:23:21 AM
Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.
If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.
How does "shall not be infringed" change the meaning of the 2A? Would there be any difference if those words were left out of the 2A?
A person carrying a firearm out in public in a time of peace? That's plain open carry. It's not the gun, it's what a person does with it. If its a handgun in a holster or person with a rifle slung, that should be normal. If they're aiming at people, or threatening to kill people, then that's entirely different.
Post by: ren on February 08, 2024, 11:24:01 AM
Interesting opinion...
It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.
I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.
Do you have a CCW? What kind of firearms you own?
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 11:27:13 AM
Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.
If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 11:28:13 AM
Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.
If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 11:29:44 AM
Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.
If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.
Wow, you went full Karen on your neighbor. Who determines "a time of peace"? What if their home had a deadly intruder? What if someone said they're coming to harm them right now? But then again, since you believe in classes, I guess you believe that 1 doesn't have the 2a right on their property.
So now, law makers will ban someone from carrying a gun while standing on their roof. What comes next? How about carrying a gun in their yard. Or carrying a gun in their open garage. Then carrying a gun in the home if it can be seen thru a window. This is why "absolute" is needed.
I say open window because a guy in WA was red flagged because he looked at his neighbors funny thru his window while having a firearm holstered. There was no bad blood between the 2, the neighbors stated they rarely if ever even talked to him. But he looked at them funny. No gestures made or unholstering the gun. Would you support this too?
Here's something to think about, if Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety and you both agree on the same thing, then you might not be as pro 2A that you think you are.
During SB1230, we saw that the Retail Merchants Org stated that training isn't good enough. Why? Because nothing can duplicate the stress of a real self defense situation. So today we're required to take a class/train, but how far from now until they move the goal post and say training isn't enough? Or require a 40 hours of training/class like how NYC did?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 11:30:03 AM
Where in the US Constitution does anyone have a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
The Declaration of Independence carries no weight -- legally speaking -- on individual rights.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 08, 2024, 11:30:50 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 11:31:46 AM
please show me where i said i wouldn't call the police...
You said you own no comms. Hey how are U smoke signal I guess.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 11:32:44 AM
I didn't know bots could open carry
Not yet. But clones and bots don't have rights according to the film 6 Days.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 11:33:21 AM
Did the hurricane decide to attack? Are we planning a counter offensive?
I must have missed something in my meteorology class....
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 11:34:50 AM
I didn't know bots could open carry
Bots can do anything they are programmed to do.
The tricky part is passing the background check, what with all the insane social media garbage they dish out.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 11:35:11 AM
I'm baffled as to how a hurricane equates to "not being a time of peace."
Did the hurricane decide to attack? Are we planning a counter offensive?
I must have missed something in my meteorology class....
When you want to take peoples right away, it's hard to come up with good examples as to why.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 08, 2024, 11:44:38 AM
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 11:57:33 AM
I must have missed it.
Where in the US Constitution does anyone have a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
The Declaration of Independence carries no weight -- legally speaking -- on individual rights.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 08, 2024, 12:08:09 PM
I must have missed it.
Where in the US Constitution does anyone have a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
The Declaration of Independence carries no weight -- legally speaking -- on individual rights.
(https://c.tenor.com/A5BfUFvHkUIAAAAC/tenor.gif)
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 12:28:34 PM
SCOTUS authority has been severely undermined this past week. While the Texas border constitutional criss thing is already out of their hands, this case would present them with an opportunity to reassert themselves should they decide to take it.
It's been undermined since Bruen was decided. CA, NY, NJ, HI, MA all said F-U and made more gun laws.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 12:30:39 PM
It's been undermined since Bruen was decided. CA, NY, NJ, HI, MA all said F-U and made more gun laws.
And iL....
Post by: Stack_Xchange on February 08, 2024, 12:32:13 PM
How do rights work?
Your rights are ALWAYS balanced with the rights of another. The Constitution itself does not comprise every law applicable law. The very same right to Free Speech protects the KKK the same way it protects the Black Panthers and everything in between. However, freedom of speech is not unlimited, and neither should any other right. I know some (most?) people here believe that 2A should be an unlimited right. I disagree. That's just a difference of opinions.
Do I own guns? What do I believe?
I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.
I do own guns. I can't say anything other than that.
Hurricanes and Karens
When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 08, 2024, 12:48:16 PM
That's not how rights work. In fact, that's the reason we have rights in the first place. To protect things that other people object to. Just because someone doesn't like it, that's on them, not on you.
I often wonder why, if all of us can understand this, that the ones in power and the ones in the judicial system cannot.
Are they getting paid under the table or something?
Madafackahs.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 12:51:08 PM
Whoa, stirred the hornets nets apparently. Too much to quote, so I'll just respond in general.
How do rights work?
Your rights are ALWAYS balanced with the rights of another. The Constitution itself does not comprise every law applicable law. The very same right to Free Speech protects the KKK the same way it protects the Black Panthers and everything in between. However, freedom of speech is not unlimited, and neither should any other right. I know some (most?) people here believe that 2A should be an unlimited right. I disagree. That's just a difference of opinions.
Do I own guns? What do I believe?
I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.
I do own guns. I can't say anything other than that.
Hurricanes and Karens
When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
Wrong. Rights are not "balanced". They either exist, or they don't. They can be limited as in "Your right to extend your fist stop where my nose begins," but that simply means the WAY in which you exercise your rights can't cause harm to others. It's not a "balancing," but a common sense determination of whether the way you want to exercise your freedom doesn't hurt anyone else unjustifiably. You can say all you want against the government until you start inciting violence -- calling for individuals to be hurt or killed.
If there's a law against your neighbor carrying a firearm on his own property, then the law needs to be addressed and possible fixed. Unless he's a threat -- pointing the weapon at random people or firing it into the air -- then he has a right to do that on his own property. If you call the Cops, you need to say he's breaking the law (if he is) or explain why he's making you pee your panties. Ever been in a real hurricane with massive flooding and looters going door to door? Talk to some Katrina survivors.
However, your neighbor standing on his roof holding an AR is hurting nobody. Unless he's threatening you, you have to put on your adult panties and let him do what he's doing. You have no right to "feel" safe from what someone "might" do. If you believe that, then that's Far Left, Progressive Liberal thinking, pure and simple. You might want to seek professional help if that's how you live your life.
Quote
§134-7.2 Prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster;https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0002.htm
suspension of permit or license. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any
other law to the contrary, no person or government entity shall seize or confiscate, under any
emergency or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any emergency period,
as defined in section 127A-2, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, as defined
in section 134-34, any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully permitted to
carry or possess the firearm or ammunition under part I of this chapter and who carries,
possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with
the criminal laws of this State.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no
person or government entity shall suspend, revoke, or limit, under any emergency or disaster
relief powers or functions conferred, any lawfully acquired and maintained permit or license
obtained under and in accordance with part I of this chapter.
(c) For purposes of this section, "government entity" means any unit of government in
this State, including the State and any county or combination of counties, department, agency,
institution, board, commission, district, council, bureau, office, governing authority, or other
instrumentality of state or county government, or corporation or other establishment owned,
operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county. [L 2010, c 96, §1; am
L 2014, c 111, §7]
So, if your neighbor is a felon (and you know that to be a fact), and you see him in possession of a firearm under any circumstances, you don't have to wait for him to be on the roof holding it to call the Cops. That's your decision.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 12:52:27 PM
Whoa, stirred the hornets nets apparently. Too much to quote, so I'll just respond in general.
How do rights work?
Your rights are ALWAYS balanced with the rights of another. The Constitution itself does not comprise every law applicable law. The very same right to Free Speech protects the KKK the same way it protects the Black Panthers and everything in between. However, freedom of speech is not unlimited, and neither should any other right. I know some (most?) people here believe that 2A should be an unlimited right. I disagree. That's just a difference of opinions.
Do I own guns? What do I believe?
I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.
I do own guns. I can't say anything other than that.
Hurricanes and Karens
When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
So to sum you up:
1) You don't believe in the 2nd amendment out side the home. You, HI, Moms Demand, Everytown all agree on this.
2) Ah, now moving goal post to "if I saw a known felon". So a non-felon carrying a gun while standing on their roof in a "time of peace" is OK.
3) It's already illegal for felons to have a gun. "a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc"). How would you know the person passed all of this? Do you suggest arm bands being worn? And would it then be OK for someone to have the 2a right?
4) "I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms", but yet one needs to pass a test to CCW, which means have the 2a right outside the home. The current test is easily passible, so it's only there to "hinder someones right to bear arms". And so was your example test.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 12:53:26 PM
I often wonder why, if all of us can understand this, that the ones in power and the ones in the judicial system cannot.
Are they getting paid under the table or something?
Madafackahs.
Getting promotions. YOu don't get a good job if you obey the Constitution. Same goes with being Chief prior to Bruen. If they ever stated they will issue CCW's to all those who legally own a gun, the wouldn't get the job.
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 12:55:20 PM
got it...
Whoa, stirred the hornets nets apparently. Too much to quote, so I'll just respond in general.
How do rights work?
Your rights are ALWAYS balanced with the rights of another. The Constitution itself does not comprise every law applicable law. The very same right to Free Speech protects the KKK the same way it protects the Black Panthers and everything in between. However, freedom of speech is not unlimited, and neither should any other right. I know some (most?) people here believe that 2A should be an unlimited right. I disagree. That's just a difference of opinions.
Do I own guns? What do I believe?
I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.
I do own guns. I can't say anything other than that.
Hurricanes and Karens
When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 12:55:25 PM
I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
So, in your opinion, rights only exist if the majority agree they do.
That's how rights are often lost -- individuals agreeing to abandon their rights because they don't see a need for them at present, or they capitulate to what we are told by politicians and the press is the popular opinion.
Once a right is lost, it often takes generations and civil war to get them back -- if ever.
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 12:55:36 PM
Whoa, stirred the hornets nets apparently. Too much to quote, so I'll just respond in general.
How do rights work?
Your rights are ALWAYS balanced with the rights of another. The Constitution itself does not comprise every law applicable law. The very same right to Free Speech protects the KKK the same way it protects the Black Panthers and everything in between. However, freedom of speech is not unlimited, and neither should any other right. I know some (most?) people here believe that 2A should be an unlimited right. I disagree. That's just a difference of opinions.
So you're saying balancing tests(legal term for balancing the public interest and individual's rights) is okay. The main point of the SCOTUS Heller and Bruen rulings was that interest balancing is wrong and it cannot be used for the 2A. History and Tradition at the time of America's founding needs to be used, basically equivalent laws generally in place around 1788.
A lot of people compare 2A restrictions to 1A freedom of speech restrictions for yelling fire in a crowded theater. It really doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech as it isn't controversial, political, opinion, expression, or anything like that, but I'll go with it anyway. Yelling fire in a theater is okay if there's a fire, or you believe there is a fire. If there is no fire and to criminally charge you for it, you need intent and harm. Equating that to criminally carrying a firearm in public, you need to have intent to do something bad and actually causing harm to people. Like yelling I'm going to kill everyone and waving your gun in the air to cause a stampede in a crowded theater.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 12:56:40 PM
. You have no right to "feel" safe from what someone "might" do. If you believe that, then that's Far Left, Progressive Liberal thinking, pure and simple. You might want to seek professional help if that's how you live your life.
That's why I brought up he, MDA,ET,etc... all feel the same way.
I wonder if he see's someone's CCW gun because their shirt blew up high with the wind, he will yet "GUN GUN GUN" at the top of his lungs. This is what 1 person testified they will do for SB1230/HB984.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 12:58:03 PM
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 08, 2024, 01:10:34 PM
This thread has now become a good lesson on the 2nd amendment right for 1 person.
AND we found out the Hawaii Supreme Court are a bunch of madafackahs.
Post by: macsak on February 08, 2024, 01:13:33 PM
This thread has now become a good lesson on the 2nd amendment right for 1 person.
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 01:16:47 PM
Do I own guns? What do I believe?
I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.
This wouldn't pass the SCOTUS history and tradition requirement and eventually training requirements, licensing, and even violent felons possessing guns (at least to some degree) will eventually be thrown out in court. But even if it won't hold up to history and tradition, at least you have some rational basis for skill requirements to prevent harm to others or shooting when you shouldn't. But keep in mind the vast majority of crimes are prevented by just carrying a gun or displaying it during a crime, which requires no shooting skill. Then most defensive shootings occur at very close ranges where little skill is needed. Then factor in hitting bystanders is very rare in reality. Then you realize that even a person with little shooting skills is very beneficial overall.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 01:26:34 PM
This wouldn't pass the SCOTUS history and tradition requirement and eventually training requirements, licensing, and even violent felons possessing guns (at least to some degree) will eventually be thrown out in court. But even if it won't hold up to history and tradition, at least you have some rational basis for skill requirements to prevent harm to others or shooting when you shouldn't. But keep in mind the vast majority of crimes are prevented by just carrying a gun or displaying it during a crime, which requires no shooting skill. Then most defensive shootings occur at very close ranges where little skill is needed. Then factor in hitting bystanders is very rare in reality. Then you realize that even a person with little shooting skills is very beneficial overall.
Coupled with real world stats on how many highly trained and certified "professionals" carrying firearms shoot, wound and/or kill innocent bystanders compared with private concealed carriers, one has to question the premise that requiring the same level of training for private individuals would make carrying firearms in public any safer. In other words, if training and certifications are what make the difference, wouldn't the stats be reversed?
I still believe most gun owners enjoy shooting and practice enough to be more than proficient. Shooting is not like driving a car. it's 1000 times less complicated, have much fewer rules and laws, and cost way less to get one. In fact, nowadays, anyone who is over 18, can pass the super-easy written test and the not-that-hard driving test can get a license and legally propel a 3,000 lb+ hunk of metal and other materials down the road at lethal speeds.
But for gun owners, we worry .... ?
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 01:36:34 PM
Hurricanes and Karens
When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.
There's a range to violent felons banned from owning firearms, from mass murderer to guy who had a mutual consent fight after school over a girl 20 years ago. I think we can agree the lesser felonies should have their 2A rights restored and it may be constitutional to ban hardcore felons from owning guns as they would get the death penalty back in the day. For the ones in the middle, it would make me queasy seeing them with a gun. But I also know for those for gun control, the thought of a law abiding citizen with a CCW makes them queasy too. Currently it's illegal for felons to own guns, but eventually I think this will get thrown out in the courts through history and tradition. Probably through expungement review requirements and bonds.
Getting public support is important and the long term goal for 2A rights as the 2A could be removed through a constitutional amendment or the makeup of SCOTUS can change with 2A decisions reversed.
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 02:38:25 PM
==========
Ironic, huh?
I think I made my POINT.
:rofl:
Adding to the irony.
For context, there are 3 Kamehameha statues, one in congress, one in front of the Hawaii Supreme Court building, and one on the big island.
https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/kamehameha-i-statue
BTW thanks OF. We're going to make a video or meme out of it.
(https://i.imgur.com/VJXQdi9.png)
Post by: groveler on February 08, 2024, 03:00:55 PM
Adding to the irony.Two on the big island.
For context, there are 3 Kamehameha statues, one in congress, one in front of the Hawaii Supreme Court building, and one on the big island.
https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/kamehameha-i-statue
BTW thanks OF. We're going to make a video or meme out of it.
(https://i.imgur.com/VJXQdi9.png)
One in Hawi and one in Hilo.
I think the Hawi one is the original.
:geekdanc:
Shipwrecks are a bitch.
And Hawaii's capitol should be just outside
Kahawaii
where Kamehameha was born.
lots of sharks there. seems appropriate for a capitol.
Pardon my spelling errors.
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2024, 03:03:29 PM
Two on the big island.
One in Hawi and one in Hilo.
I think the Hawi one is the original.
:geekdanc:
Shipwrecks are a bitch.
Oh yea, forgot about the one in the park.
Post by: groveler on February 08, 2024, 03:17:30 PM
Oh yea, forgot about the one in the park.Contrary to what Honolulu centrist citizens think,
us white guys who have been in "real" Hawaii for a while
love the place and the people. Regardless of race or traditions.
:thumbsup:
We don't like the government you have chosen.
Post by: Stack_Xchange on February 08, 2024, 05:26:15 PM
Take the $100 I donated (and everything else I have done to lobby) and buy yourself some lunch for your efforts, because I apparently was not supporting the cause to begin with.
Good luck.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 08, 2024, 05:37:34 PM
Well, I guess I don't support the 2A then, because you all have decided that I don't.
Take the $100 I donated (and everything else I have done to lobby) and buy yourself some lunch for your efforts, because I apparently was not supporting the cause to begin with.
Good luck.
That's not how the donation works. It is for the lawsuit and it's expenses. The people here also do not have access to the funds to go buy lunch anyways.
When you're ready to support the cause more, feel free to ask more questions so we can help you understand things.
Post by: ren on February 08, 2024, 06:30:26 PM
Post by: Q on February 08, 2024, 09:21:11 PM
This is perfectly in line with what I keep posting about Hawaii's historical experience with firearms.
Hawaiians never went through
the Revolutionary war,
didn't create the US Constitution and all it's Amendments over time,
didn't participate in the Civil War,
never lived through the push for Manifest Destiny,
didn't deal with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement,
didn't have to endure the KKK (the REAL racists who would kill non-whites, not the current "every White person is racist" BS),
The Great Depression and the aftermath,
the destruction of the nuclear family by government policies and social deviants,
and on and on ....
Hawaii's history is not the same as the mainland's. They never gained the appreciation for self defense and our "gun culture", because they have always been under a monarch until they became a state.
I wonder how the state courts interpret the battles fought to unite the islands under one ruler? Is that the "Aloha" they refer to? :wacko:
Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.
And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.
But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 08, 2024, 10:44:37 PM
My problem is with the line of reasoning used, that the Aloha Spirit somehow trumps the US Supreme Court and that old timey founding father's language can be tossed away if modern ideas conflict.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 08, 2024, 11:05:56 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 08, 2024, 11:22:48 PM
Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.
And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.
But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.
The Hawaii Government declared its neutrality in the Civil War. The fact that some Hawaiians made the decision to fight for both the Union and Confederate sides doesn't change what I said. The Hawaii homeland did not have its homes destroyed, its crops burned, etc. That's what I was referring to -- the islands did not "go through" the US Civil War.
And I never said Hawaiians didn't participate in "every major conflict." I was specific about which events and conflicts I chose. Those were more related to the Second Amendment than the federal government issuing a soldier a rifle or ordering a sailor to man a cannon.
I notice you ignored all the other examples I listed.
You never said: is it your opinion that the people of Hawaii experienced the same gun culture as the mainland US between 1780 and 1950? That was my point.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 08, 2024, 11:42:08 PM
Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.
And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.
I'd watch that movie if someone made it
Post by: Brystont1 on February 09, 2024, 12:29:08 AM
Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.
And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.
But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.
Wow that’s crazy I never knew that. I’ll have to read up on that sometime.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 09, 2024, 08:07:57 AM
I wouldn't say it is the worst decision ever. They made a decision that raises some issues with the Bruen case but it doesn't outright contradict it either since Bruen didn't make any mention of whether permits to carry are constitutional or not (If I understand the case correctly)
My problem is with the line of reasoning used, that the Aloha Spirit somehow trumps the US Supreme Court and that old timey founding father's language can be tossed away if modern ideas conflict.
It's the "worst 2a decision ever". You left "2a" out. Just making sure because I'm sure you're right that it's not the "worst decision ever".
Since Bruen set a new way of making 2a related cases, this changes everything becasue cases prior to Bruen, the state could use "public safety" to justify any anti 2a law. Now post Bruen, they cannot do that, even though in this decisions, the judge is.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 09, 2024, 08:22:48 AM
SInce you believe in a shooting test, think about this. Right now there is only 1 place that is open to the public instructors to do any sort of shooting test. Xring only allows their instructors. The bays at KHSC are closed and you cannot do your test at the 25 min yard line on the pistol side. Also the bays have something about only non-profit groups using them (exclude HPD and armored car, etc...) which means unless a CCW instructor teaches for free, then they are accepting $. Then there are a few private lands, but this isn't open to all CCW instructors. You basically gotta have the hook up to teach there.
So if the only place ever decided to do what X ring does, then to do your shooting test would be very difficult and there will be more of a monopoly. Of course, at 1 point, this range was also closed. So things happen in general that stops them from being "open to the public".
Compare this to NV that also requires a shooting test that many ranges let any instructor use them, or they could go to the public Cook County Range that lets people holster draw and much closer targets, or even go into the desert to shoot.
HI doesn't have these "available" options. What if the indoor ranges want to increase prices? Nothing stops them if they were to work together.
THen when covid shut everything down, no one would be able to do your test since the ranges were all closed. Good luck getting a RSVP to HPD also. Guess the 2A right you think you support is denied at the time.
These are all just some issues when a test is required to exercise a right.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 09, 2024, 08:27:09 AM
I wouldn't say it is the worst decision ever. They made a decision that raises some issues with the Bruen case but it doesn't outright contradict it either since Bruen didn't make any mention of whether permits to carry are constitutional or not (If I understand the case correctly)
My problem is with the line of reasoning used, that the Aloha Spirit somehow trumps the US Supreme Court and that old timey founding father's language can be tossed away if modern ideas conflict.
I forgot to add, you should read the entire opinion. Long story short, the HI SC is saying they are disregarding multiple SCOTUS rulings. So why even have a SCOTUS?
Post by: rpoL98 on February 09, 2024, 02:19:07 PM
yeah. that's why I don't socialize with any of y'all peopleit was good seeing you on the range. ;D :shaka:
Post by: rpoL98 on February 09, 2024, 02:22:41 PM
quandary. :wacko:
Post by: ren on February 09, 2024, 04:09:06 PM
it was good seeing you on the range. ;D :shaka:
You are not of the y'all people :shaka:
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 09, 2024, 06:50:08 PM
yeah, on the one hand, I support TX giving the finger to the feds on the southern border, however, Hawaii giving the finger to SCOTUS on 2a, I think that's banana republic arrogance.
quandary. :wacko:
When the Hawaii SC gave the "Aloha Spirit middle finger" to SCOTUS on 2a, Hawaii has shown for all to see their true colors.
I'm sure if Hawaii were to ever experience a SHTF or WROL scenario, the "Aloha Spirit middle finger" will protect them from harm.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 11, 2024, 11:49:18 PM
It's the "worst 2a decision ever". You left "2a" out. Just making sure because I'm sure you're right that it's not the "worst decision ever".
Since Bruen set a new way of making 2a related cases, this changes everything becasue cases prior to Bruen, the state could use "public safety" to justify any anti 2a law. Now post Bruen, they cannot do that, even though in this decisions, the judge is.
True, I forgot to include the 2A part. There are definitely worse decisions.
You ask why even have a SCOTUS... SCOTUS can change their minds but they generally have to have a case that works its way up so it is possible that the HI SCOTUS was trying to push an issue up to the SCOTUS for a final ruling though given that the composition of the court hasn't changed it would not be strategically very smart. I don't think that was their intent though.
Post by: 4C5S on February 12, 2024, 07:06:05 AM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 12, 2024, 09:16:59 PM
Wouldn’t this 5-0 ruling on Wilson by the HISC fit the definition of insurrection?
No
Post by: 4C5S on February 12, 2024, 09:56:14 PM
NoMaybe sedition then?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 12, 2024, 10:43:44 PM
Maybe sedition then?
Not really.
Think about it this way, the SCOTUS has made unconstitutional decisions in the past. The way of rectifying those is for a new case to work its way up the ranks. If every time a lower court went against a SCOTUS decision was considered sedition or insurrection then old unconstitutional decisions wouldn't get overturned. This is how our courts work.
On top of that the HI SC didn't defy a ruling from SCOTUS either. The real problem is if SCOTUS ruled something and a lower court refused to comply with the ruling and state government disobeyed the SCOTUS ruling.
Post by: 4C5S on February 13, 2024, 06:17:06 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 13, 2024, 07:41:37 AM
On top of that the HI SC didn't defy a ruling from SCOTUS either. The real problem is if SCOTUS ruled something and a lower court refused to comply with the ruling and state government disobeyed the SCOTUS ruling.
DId you read the brief?
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 13, 2024, 08:27:15 AM
This Wilson decision tells me the current HISC judges are definitely a bunch of addlepates.
Learned another word to describe joe biden today.
Post by: oldfart on February 13, 2024, 02:34:22 PM
Learned another word to describe joe biden today....
Had to Google that word too.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 13, 2024, 02:47:12 PM
Post by: zippz on February 13, 2024, 04:42:24 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on February 13, 2024, 05:48:38 PM
I wonder if the AG or senators will bring this up in tomorrows hearing to justify an awb.
I haven't been to a hearing in a while. It used to be McCarthy would get a chance after every pro-2a argument to offer a rebuttal, but nobody was allowed to rebut his rebuttal. Definitely feels like we had the deck stacked against us, but I think the sheer force of numbers was our reason for success.
Do you have an email list? I'm not getting any organizing emails and I refuse to sign up for Instabook
Post by: zippz on February 13, 2024, 06:02:02 PM
Do you have an email list? I'm not getting any organizing emails and I refuse to sign up for Instabookposting on X, twitter
https://twitter.com/hificoorg
Post by: hvybarrels on February 13, 2024, 06:42:01 PM
posting on X, twitter
https://twitter.com/hificoorg
I don't trust Elon either
Running an email campaign list isn't fun, but it helps bring in the geezers and conspiracy theorists.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 13, 2024, 10:31:18 PM
DId you read the brief?
Not yet. Did you?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 13, 2024, 11:07:15 PM
DId you read the brief?
Not yet. Did you?
Just go read it. All your hypotheticals and nuances will be more definitively answered if you use your time productively instead of being argumentative.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 14, 2024, 09:02:26 AM
Not yet. Did you?
Read it and come back and see if your statement of HI SC not defying SCOTUS is still accurate.
It's worth a read because it's very interesting.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 14, 2024, 09:22:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMPkPYaIU1I
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 14, 2024, 11:42:31 PM
Just go read it. All your hypotheticals and nuances will be more definitively answered if you use your time productively instead of being argumentative.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf
What hypotheticals did I make?
Do you think everyone here read all 53 pages or instead read/listened to summaries?
Stop trying to start more fights just to fight.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 15, 2024, 12:06:47 AM
What hypotheticals did I make?
Do you think everyone here read all 53 pages or instead read/listened to summaries?
Stop trying to start more fights just to fight.
So, unless everyone else reads all 53 pages, you aren't motivated to read them either?
This is why your comment was not well received.
"On top of that the HI SC didn't defy a ruling from SCOTUS either. The real problem is if SCOTUS ruled something and a lower court refused to comply with the ruling and state government disobeyed the SCOTUS ruling."
The brief says the HI court does not agree with the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen.
Sounds like they are defying a ruling from SCOTUS by refusing to follow it as the "law of the land."
Some excerpts:
- When the two contain look-alike
provisions, Hawaiʻi has chosen not to lockstep with the Supreme
Court’s interpretation of the federal constitution.
Rather, this court frequently walks another way. Long ago,
the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an “opinion of the
United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of
authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration,
but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the
outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi
Constitution.” State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 369 n.6, 520 P.2d
51, 58 n.6 (1974). Further, “this court has not hesitated to
adopt the dissents in U.S. Supreme Court cases when it was
believed the dissent was better reasoned than the majority
opinion.” State v. Mundon, 129 Hawaiʻi 1, 18 n.25, 292 P.3d 205,
222 n.25 (2012).
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
That last one defies several SCOTUS rulings that affirmed and reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, an individual right.
Quote
The challenge made its way to the Supreme Court, which, in a 5-4 decisionhttps://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf
authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the Second Amendment
provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.
Hawaii is basically acting as a soverign entity with no acknowledgement that anything decided in the federal courts outside of the state holds any weight.
If they don't like a ruling, they just ignore it. Unless Congress follows through and incorporates a SCOTUS decision in the associated laws, Hawaii has no duty to abide by it.
Now, go do your homework.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 12:08:00 AM
Read it and come back and see if your statement of HI SC not defying SCOTUS is still accurate.
It's worth a read because it's very interesting.
Okay.
I do agree it is interesting, I think the standing argument is pretty weak though. Pointing out that 134-9 is not a crime and was a cheap way of justifying avoiding the issue.
The debate over the militia and bear arms was quite interesting.
The reason I said the HI SC didn't defy the SCOTUS is because Bruen didn't specifically address whether requiring permits for concealed carry was constitutional or not. Buren only limited certain types of justifications governments can give for denying concealed carry. Bruen didn't eliminate laws that require permits to carry altogether which is why this case doesn't go directly against a SCOTUS decision.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 12:15:04 AM
So, unless everyone else reads all 53 pages, you aren't motivated to read them either?
I didn't say that..
Quote
This is why your comment was not well received.
"On top of that the HI SC didn't defy a ruling from SCOTUS either. The real problem is if SCOTUS ruled something and a lower court refused to comply with the ruling and state government disobeyed the SCOTUS ruling."
The brief says the HI court does not agree with the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen.
Sounds like they are defying a ruling from SCOTUS by refusing to follow it as the "law of the land."
Disagreeing with an interpretation is not the same thing as defying. They had different interpretations of certain things than did the SCOTUS but they didn't fail to uphold the Bruen
ruling.
Quote
That last one defies several SCOTUS rulings that affirmed and reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, an individual right.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf
Bruen didn't say that laws requiring permits to carry a firearm were unconstitutional though. If they had then the HI SC would be defying the SCOTUS.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 15, 2024, 12:18:02 AM
Okay.
I do agree it is interesting, I think the standing argument is pretty weak though. Pointing out that 134-9 is not a crime and was a cheap way of justifying avoiding the issue.
The debate over the militia and bear arms was quite interesting.
The reason I said the HI SC didn't defy the SCOTUS is because Bruen didn't specifically address whether requiring permits for concealed carry was constitutional or not. Buren only limited certain types of justifications governments can give for denying concealed carry. Bruen didn't eliminate laws that require permits to carry altogether which is why this case doesn't go directly against a SCOTUS decision.
And what was it Bruen did say? Any clue?
The court made its ruling then told the lower courts -- including state level courts -- to revisit their recent firearm case rulings, and to review existing and planned gun control laws by applying the "Bruen test." SCOTUS left it up to the courts to go through al the permitting, licensing, taxation, training, bans, registration, and all other related "schemes" implemented by their legislatures to ensure the rules they are forcing their constituents to follow are constitutional by the new standards.
SCOTUS isn't going to sit down in this one case and declare, "Maryland, Hawaii, California and New York ... your permit, registration and CCW laws are unconstitutional. Illinois, North Carolina, and Georgia ... you're borderline and we have a list of things you need to change, ..." and so on. That's not how the Supreme Court works. It's now up to the justice department to enforce the Constitution by enforcing the Bruen decision, or brace for the flood of lawsuits from every state that refuses to follow the US Constitution.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 15, 2024, 12:23:33 AM
I didn't say that..
This is why your comment was not well received.
"On top of that the HI SC didn't defy a ruling from SCOTUS either. The real problem is if SCOTUS ruled something and a lower court refused to comply with the ruling and state government disobeyed the SCOTUS ruling."
The brief says the HI court does not agree with the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen.
Sounds like they are defying a ruling from SCOTUS by refusing to follow it as the "law of the land."
Disagreeing with an interpretation is not the same thing as defying. They had different interpretations of certain things than did the SCOTUS but they didn't fail to uphold the Bruen
ruling.
Bruen didn't say that laws requiring permits to carry a firearm were unconstitutional though. If they had then the HI SC would be defying the SCOTUS.
Is English a problem for you?
They did not JUST disagree with the interpretation, they also stated they do not, and will not, put the SOTUS's opinions over their own.
How is that not defiance? This is not an intellectual debate where the state can trot out the "let's agree to disagree" cop -out. This is the federal judicial system being told they have no power over what the states want to do, even if the feds deem what's being done as violating individuals' constitutional rights.
It's not a difficult concept. you can disagree with your parents that 9pm is an appropriate bedtime when you were 8 years old. But, when 9:10 rolls around, and you're not in bed, is it your opinion the child is not defying their parents?
Post by: 4C5S on February 15, 2024, 06:42:32 AM
This obtuse ruling was a meager stunt which just goes to show how jocose and irrelevant Hawaii is and the disdain it has for the rule of law.
But it will get worse and it’s just a matter of time before anarchy overshadows the islands.
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 15, 2024, 07:18:22 AM
All 50 States (including Hawaii), US Territories and the Federal government obsequious to the US Constitution, thus the HISC is an inferior court to SCOTUS and thus must yield to SCOTUS.
This obtuse ruling was a meager stunt which just goes to show how jocose and irrelevant Hawaii is and the disdain it has for the rule of law.
But it will get worse and it’s just a matter of time before anarchy overshadows the islands.
That's what I was thinking. Otherwise, WTF is SCOTUS for?
But I did try to read and understand another document that was saying the Bruen decision left open stuff like this sh*t to happen. It wasn't concise enough (my words, not the document). I take it the document was saying in legal speak that the lower courts will challenge the Bruen decision until clarification from the higher courts is made.
Again, my words and my take from the document. It was pretty heavy for me as far as comprehension since it used a lot of legal terms and words that kinda made me a victim of the swoosh analogy used a lot in this forum.
Post by: ren on February 15, 2024, 07:30:56 AM
All 50 States (including Hawaii), US Territories and the Federal government obsequious to the US Constitution, thus the HISC is an inferior court to SCOTUS and thus must yield to SCOTUS.
This obtuse ruling was a meager stunt which just goes to show how jocose and irrelevant Hawaii is and the disdain it has for the rule of law.
But it will get worse and it’s just a matter of time before anarchy overshadows the islands.
I don't think Hawaii cares enough for us to devolve into anarchy. We are in a perpetual plantation style mentality. We vote useful idiots into office and turn to them for solutions for our everyday lives. We are happy and content. Free food. Leefted Tacomas. Beach every day. Convoys matter! yessah....Aloha!
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 15, 2024, 07:43:18 AM
Okay.
I do agree it is interesting, I think the standing argument is pretty weak though. Pointing out that 134-9 is not a crime and was a cheap way of justifying avoiding the issue.
The debate over the militia and bear arms was quite interesting.
The reason I said the HI SC didn't defy the SCOTUS is because Bruen didn't specifically address whether requiring permits for concealed carry was constitutional or not. Buren only limited certain types of justifications governments can give for denying concealed carry. Bruen didn't eliminate laws that require permits to carry altogether which is why this case doesn't go directly against a SCOTUS decision.
CCW is moot as he wasn't charged with violating it. It just states that he never attempted to apply for one. Its being uses as a distraction to what he was charged with. He was charged with violating "places to keep". Which the state didn't show adequate "history/tradition". This is what Buren mentions is the test if a law is constitutional or not. Wilsons argument was that the law he's charged with is unconstitutional.
So HI did violate SCOTUS. They also used the "public safety" argument (aloha spirit), which Bruen also stated cannot be used.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 15, 2024, 07:45:16 AM
Is English a problem for you?
They did not JUST disagree with the interpretation, they also stated they do not, and will not, put the SOTUS's opinions over their own.
How is that not defiance? This is not an intellectual debate where the state can trot out the "let's agree to disagree" cop -out. This is the federal judicial system being told they have no power over what the states want to do, even if the feds deem what's being done as violating individuals' constitutional rights.
It's not a difficult concept. you can disagree with your parents that 9pm is an appropriate bedtime when you were 8 years old. But, when 9:10 rolls around, and you're not in bed, is it your opinion the child is not defying their parents?
They did state Bruen is wrong. Which is "defying" SCOTUS.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 15, 2024, 07:46:23 AM
All 50 States (including Hawaii), US Territories and the Federal government obsequious to the US Constitution, thus the HISC is an inferior court to SCOTUS and thus must yield to SCOTUS.
This obtuse ruling was a meager stunt which just goes to show how jocose and irrelevant Hawaii is and the disdain it has for the rule of law.
But it will get worse and it’s just a matter of time before anarchy overshadows the islands.
Yet Judge Nguyen on the 9th circuit ask how many "assault rifles" are in CA, after she was told the nation has about 24 million. This question doesn't matter, as the 2A applies to the ENTIRE nation. Which is why I stated she's either retarded or corrupt.
Post by: ren on February 15, 2024, 07:52:40 AM
Not yet. Did you?
Post by: rpoL98 on February 15, 2024, 03:21:46 PM
Yet Judge Nguyen on the 9th circuit ask how many "assault rifles" are in CA, after she was told the nation has about 24 million. This question doesn't matter, as the 2A applies to the ENTIRE nation. Which is why I stated she's either retarded or corrupt.well, after all, California is the land of fruits and nuts.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 09:49:26 PM
Is English a problem for you?
They did not JUST disagree with the interpretation, they also stated they do not, and will not, put the SOTUS's opinions over their own.
How is that not defiance? This is not an intellectual debate where the state can trot out the "let's agree to disagree" cop -out. This is the federal judicial system being told they have no power over what the states want to do, even if the feds deem what's being done as violating individuals' constitutional rights.
It's not a difficult concept. you can disagree with your parents that 9pm is an appropriate bedtime when you were 8 years old. But, when 9:10 rolls around, and you're not in bed, is it your opinion the child is not defying their parents?
They didn't defy the SCOTUS because they didn't fail to enforce anything in the Buren decision.
Sticking with your child analogy, if you tell the child to be in bed at 9 and the child complains, criticizes, and says they won't but then go to bed at 9 they haven't actually broken your instruction. Bruen left the window open for states to implement permit requirements and the HI SC made their decision within that parameter. The HI SC can say that the SCOTUS is wrong all they want but it is when the rubber hits the road and laws are passed or cases are decided where the government either follows Bruen or doesn't.
Wilson argued the law was unconstitutional but the Bruen decision didn't say that it is unconstitutional for a state to require a permit to carry. Kavanaugh and Roberts in Bruen stated that states may implement licensing requirements.
Is English a problem for you?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 09:49:56 PM
usefuluseless idiot (useful ones can at least read)
I went and read it. Did you?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 10:10:52 PM
CCW is moot as he wasn't charged with violating it. It just states that he never attempted to apply for one. Its being uses as a distraction to what he was charged with. He was charged with violating "places to keep". Which the state didn't show adequate "history/tradition". This is what Buren mentions is the test if a law is constitutional or not. Wilsons argument was that the law he's charged with is unconstitutional.
So HI did violate SCOTUS. They also used the "public safety" argument (aloha spirit), which Bruen also stated cannot be used.
No one is charged with violating the CCW permit requirement because it does not create the crime. 134-9 (license to carry) creates an exemption to place to keep so if you don't have the license set out in 134-9 you get charged with place to keep.
His failure to apply is kind of a cop out by prosecutors but it is still a problem for Wilson. If there is a legal means to accomplish something but you never tried to follow those means then it is harder for you to claim you were unfairly denied. However if you did use the avenue and were declined then you have grounds to use it as a defense because you can say you attempted to follow the law but was denied.
If requiring a permit to carry a firearm was a violation of Bruen then why did Kavanaugh and Roberts say that states could still implement licensing requirements. Bruen basically made states go from "may issue" to "shall issue". Bruen didn't implement constitutional carry.
Post by: Brystont1 on February 15, 2024, 10:36:11 PM
No one is charged with violating the CCW permit requirement because it does not create the crime. 134-9 (license to carry) creates an exemption to place to keep so if you don't have the license set out in 134-9 you get charged with place to keep.
His failure to apply is kind of a cop out by prosecutors but it is still a problem for Wilson. If there is a legal means to accomplish something but you never tried to follow those means then it is harder for you to claim you were unfairly denied. However if you did use the avenue and were declined then you have grounds to use it as a defense because you can say you attempted to follow the law but was denied.
If requiring a permit to carry a firearm was a violation of Bruen then why did Kavanaugh and Roberts say that states could still implement licensing requirements. Bruen basically made states go from "may issue" to "shall issue". Bruen didn't implement constitutional carry.
I must’ve missed the part where the HSC justified the states law by finding historical analogues and traditions of the government requiring permits to carry firearms.
Post by: zippz on February 15, 2024, 10:50:49 PM
No one is charged with violating the CCW permit requirement because it does not create the crime. 134-9 (license to carry) creates an exemption to place to keep so if you don't have the license set out in 134-9 you get charged with place to keep.
His failure to apply is kind of a cop out by prosecutors but it is still a problem for Wilson. If there is a legal means to accomplish something but you never tried to follow those means then it is harder for you to claim you were unfairly denied. However if you did use the avenue and were declined then you have grounds to use it as a defense because you can say you attempted to follow the law but was denied.
If requiring a permit to carry a firearm was a violation of Bruen then why did Kavanaugh and Roberts say that states could still implement licensing requirements. Bruen basically made states go from "may issue" to "shall issue". Bruen didn't implement constitutional carry.
Hawaii was a total ban state at the time, as if 134-9 didn't exist at all.
On the last part is a little deceptive in a way, as if the judges approved of licensing. The plaintiffs didn't request an end to licensing, just lifting of the overly strict requirements. It wasn't addressed at all.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 11:20:28 PM
I must’ve missed the part where the HSC justified the states law by finding historical analogues and traditions of the government requiring permits to carry firearms.
The did present a historical argument where they tried to trace firearm restrictions from the Hawaiian Kingdom, through the provisional government, all the way up until today. The HSC did actually put forth a text, history, and tradition argument
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 15, 2024, 11:29:25 PM
Hawaii was a total ban state at the time, as if 134-9 didn't exist at all.
On the last part is a little deceptive in a way, as if the judges approved of licensing. The plaintiffs didn't request an end to licensing, just lifting of the overly strict requirements. It wasn't addressed at all.
Not quite, permits to carry did exist in the text, they were just extremely rarely issued. A distinction without a difference I suppose though.
The reason I think the citation that he failed to apply for a permit is a bit of a cop out because if he had actually applied for a permit, and was denied, I rather doubt they would have decided it way differently even though he could then claim he had standing. It is still something they can point to as a technicality though to justify their decision.
To be clear, I don't think it was a good decision by any measure. I am very interested to see what the SCOTUS does with this case if it is taken up there.
Post by: Brystont1 on February 16, 2024, 09:03:33 AM
The did present a historical argument where they tried to trace firearm restrictions from the Hawaiian Kingdom, through the provisional government, all the way up until today. The HSC did actually put forth a text, history, and tradition argument
Wtf the Hawaiian kingdom did not have a 2nd ammendment, why the hell would SCOTUS ruling allow states to trace back restrictions to a time where there were no such protections. Hawaiian kingdom law is irrelevant as we are trying to interpret US law.
Post by: ren on February 16, 2024, 09:44:09 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2024, 10:35:57 AM
The did present a historical argument where they tried to trace firearm restrictions from the Hawaiian Kingdom, through the provisional government, all the way up until today. The HSC did actually put forth a text, history, and tradition argument
Explain what facts the HSC included in the text, history and tradition argument.
Then explain how those facts satisfied the Bruen test for Constitutionality.
Merely "putting forth" an historical argument does not a valid argument make.
Pointing to "restrictions" in general is not sufficient. The restrictions have to be in the same ballpark as the new restrictions.
Also, keep in mind the Hawaiian Kingdom was a monarchy. What they were allowed to restrict under that form of government is much more open-ended than what a constitutionally designed form of democratic republic might be allowed.
There's a reason the late 1700s is the starting point for historical analogues under Bruen. The US Constitution (and the Second Amendment) didn't exist until then. Arguing what a Hawaiian Monarch did before they were constrained by the US Bill of Rights is just as invalid.
Post by: zippz on February 16, 2024, 10:54:49 AM
On the other hand, they know Hawaii is part of the US and SCOTUS overrules the state and after their Hawaii analysis, should've relented to that.
They could've been modest and said Hawaiian version was based differently from the US 2A and Bruen didn't answer the question of licensing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:12:40 PM
They didn't defy the SCOTUS because they didn't fail to enforce anything in the Buren decision.
Yes they did.
They stated Bruen is wrong.
Mark Smith of 4 boxes Diner agrees (constitutional lawyer), Colin Noir (lawyer) agrees, FPC agrees. But I guess they're all wrong and you're correct.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:15:30 PM
No one is charged with violating the CCW permit requirement because it does not create the crime. 134-9 (license to carry) creates an exemption to place to keep so if you don't have the license set out in 134-9 you get charged with place to keep.
His failure to apply is kind of a cop out by prosecutors but it is still a problem for Wilson. If there is a legal means to accomplish something but you never tried to follow those means then it is harder for you to claim you were unfairly denied. However if you did use the avenue and were declined then you have grounds to use it as a defense because you can say you attempted to follow the law but was denied.
If requiring a permit to carry a firearm was a violation of Bruen then why did Kavanaugh and Roberts say that states could still implement licensing requirements. Bruen basically made states go from "may issue" to "shall issue". Bruen didn't implement constitutional carry.
That is why I said CCW is moot. You must like reading your own post.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:16:39 PM
The did present a historical argument where they tried to trace firearm restrictions from the Hawaiian Kingdom, through the provisional government, all the way up until today. The HSC did actually put forth a text, history, and tradition argument
That's not the correct Bruen required history/tradition. HI was not a state at the time.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:17:44 PM
Wtf the Hawaiian kingdom did not have a 2nd ammendment, why the hell would SCOTUS ruling allow states to trace back restrictions to a time where there were no such protections. Hawaiian kingdom law is irrelevant as we are trying to interpret US law.
Yes, Hawaiian Kingdom law is irrelevant under the Bruen test. EEF is just trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:18:53 PM
so stupid dumb madafakazs. Yeah let's interpret law back when a State wasn't a State. What next tracing tradition, historical lineage all the way back to B.C. when there was no written language? The world was a harsher place back then and you were a dumb madafaka if you didn't have the means to protect you and your family. Dumb madafakaz.
They aren't dumb, they're throwing random shit at the wall to see what sticks because there is no history/tradition behind places to keep.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 16, 2024, 01:19:52 PM
Explain what facts the HSC included in the text, history and tradition argument.
Then explain how those facts satisfied the Bruen test for Constitutionality.
Merely "putting forth" an historical argument does not a valid argument make.
Pointing to "restrictions" in general is not sufficient. The restrictions have to be in the same ballpark as the new restrictions.
Also, keep in mind the Hawaiian Kingdom was a monarchy. What they were allowed to restrict under that form of government is much more open-ended than what a constitutionally designed form of democratic republic might be allowed.
There's a reason the late 1700s is the starting point for historical analogues under Bruen. The US Constitution (and the Second Amendment) didn't exist until then. Arguing what a Hawaiian Monarch did before they were constrained by the US Bill of Rights is just as invalid.
I asked him to point out history/tradiiton in his red flag argument and he failed to do so. So I'll assume he will ignore this too.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 16, 2024, 10:40:13 PM
Wtf the Hawaiian kingdom did not have a 2nd ammendment, why the hell would SCOTUS ruling allow states to trace back restrictions to a time where there were no such protections. Hawaiian kingdom law is irrelevant as we are trying to interpret US law.
I don't understand all the ins and outs but I do know that US courts sometimes reach back to pre-USA times to interpret certain aspects of law. Some court decisions reached all the way back to English common law to help them make their decisions.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 16, 2024, 10:54:07 PM
Explain what facts the HSC included in the text, history and tradition argument.
Then explain how those facts satisfied the Bruen test for Constitutionality.
Merely "putting forth" an historical argument does not a valid argument make.
Pointing to "restrictions" in general is not sufficient. The restrictions have to be in the same ballpark as the new restrictions.
Also, keep in mind the Hawaiian Kingdom was a monarchy. What they were allowed to restrict under that form of government is much more open-ended than what a constitutionally designed form of democratic republic might be allowed.
There's a reason the late 1700s is the starting point for historical analogues under Bruen. The US Constitution (and the Second Amendment) didn't exist until then. Arguing what a Hawaiian Monarch did before they were constrained by the US Bill of Rights is just as invalid.
Maybe you should go read the decision. There spend many pages building an argument that there is a history of specific firearm restrictions in Hawaiian history.
US courts have citied British common law before in their decisions even though it was from before the US bill of rights.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 16, 2024, 10:58:00 PM
On one hand the Hawaii Supreme Court is primarily focused on the State Constitution and Hawaii's history and tradition. Its true that Hawaii has heavily regulated guns from the territorial days and possibly into ancient Hawaii but I'm not familiar with that.
On the other hand, they know Hawaii is part of the US and SCOTUS overrules the state and after their Hawaii analysis, should've relented to that.
They could've been modest and said Hawaiian version was based differently from the US 2A and Bruen didn't answer the question of licensing.
One critique I listened to from the podcast in the link below was that it could have been basically a 2 page decision if they had done as you suggested and not laid out weird long and unnecessary argument.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guns-and-the-aloha-state/id1490993194?i=1000645421973
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 16, 2024, 10:59:30 PM
Yes they did.
They stated Bruen is wrong.
Mark Smith of 4 boxes Diner agrees (constitutional lawyer), Colin Noir (lawyer) agrees, FPC agrees. But I guess they're all wrong and you're correct.
I'd suggest this pretty in depth analysis of the decision.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guns-and-the-aloha-state/id1490993194?i=1000645421973
The HSC stating that Bruen is wrong is not the same thing as defying them
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 16, 2024, 11:01:17 PM
Yes, Hawaiian Kingdom law is irrelevant under the Bruen test. EEF is just trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about.
You should read up about the practice of US courts citing British common law so you don't sound like you are trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
And no, CCW is not moot because it is part of the overall decision. The HSC pointed to the fact that Wilson hadn't applied for a CCW as part of their decision.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2024, 12:45:00 AM
Maybe you should go read the decision. There spend many pages building an argument that there is a history of specific firearm restrictions in Hawaiian history.
US courts have citied British common law before in their decisions even though it was from before the US bill of rights.
Hawaiian history is now US history?
Could you use a Canadian law from the 1780s to justify a proposed US law?
We use some British legal history because we were founded as a British colony. Where a US law has a foundation in British law, it's proper to use those origins when analyzing their application today.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not expect that we should base our gun laws on the historical analogues of other countries. If they did, we might as well through the Second Amendment in the toilet.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2024, 12:56:17 AM
You should read up about the practice of US courts citing British common law so you don't sound like you are trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
And no, CCW is not moot because it is part of the overall decision. The HSC pointed to the fact that Wilson hadn't applied for a CCW as part of their decision.
Why are you bringing up British common law over and over?
The Bruen case was about the Second Amendment under the US Constitution.
Any arguments arising from laws before 1776 are not relevant to this discussion.
Unless British common law had jurisdiction over the United States after the Second Amendment was ratified, your posts have no meaning.
Post by: 4C5S on February 17, 2024, 05:40:32 AM
Post by: randay on February 17, 2024, 05:59:31 AM
End of argument.
lul, good luck with that. we got at least 4 more pages of "NO, You!" coming.
Post by: macsak on February 17, 2024, 06:34:19 AM
lul, good luck with that. we got at least 4 more pages of "NO, You!" coming.
Post by: Brystont1 on February 17, 2024, 08:00:02 AM
I don't understand all the ins and outs but I do know that US courts sometimes reach back to pre-USA times to interpret certain aspects of law. Some court decisions reached all the way back to English common law to help them make their decisions.
They reached back so they could figure out what the founders where trying to protect when they wrote the 2A. That analysis has ALREADY been done no need to go back there which is why they stated in Bruen “historical analogues” in our nations history and tradition, not historical analogues in world history. Again common sense tells you that you can’t reach back into a time where self defense laws regarding “arms” were non existent.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2024, 08:26:08 AM
They reached back so they could figure out what the founders where trying to protect when they wrote the 2A. That analysis has ALREADY been done no need to go back there which is why they stated in Bruen “historical analogues” in our nations history and tradition, not historical analogues in world history. Again common sense tells you that you can’t reach back into a time where self defense laws regarding “arms” were non existent.
Actually, the Second Amendment, along with much of the Bill of Rights, were based at least in part on British laws.
Quote
The Declaration of Right was enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689,
which received royal assent in December 1689.[19]
The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that:[20]
- the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with (i.e. ignoring) laws
by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
- the commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal; levying taxes without grant of
Parliament is illegal;
- it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and prosecutions for such petitioning
are illegal;
- keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is
against law;
- Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions
and as allowed by law;
- election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
- the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached
or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
- excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted;
- jurors in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
- promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void;
- for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws,
Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
Quote
The Bill of Rights directly influenced the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights,[29][nb 3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
which in turn influenced the Declaration of Independence.[30]
Although not a comprehensive statement of civil and political liberties, the Bill of Rights
stands as one of the landmark documents in the development of civil liberties in the United
Kingdom and a model for later, more general, statements of rights;[31][18][26] these include
the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on
Human Rights.[32][33] For example, as with the Bill of Rights 1689, the US Constitution
prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual punishment". Similarly, "cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment" is banned under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 17, 2024, 08:40:55 AM
I don't understand all the ins and outs but I do know that US courts sometimes reach back to pre-USA times to interpret certain aspects of law. Some court decisions reached all the way back to English common law to help them make their decisions.This is not allowed in the Bruen test.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 17, 2024, 08:41:08 AM
Not allowed in the Bruen test.
Maybe you should go read the decision. There spend many pages building an argument that there is a history of specific firearm restrictions in Hawaiian history.
US courts have citied British common law before in their decisions even though it was from before the US bill of rights.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 17, 2024, 08:41:48 AM
I'd suggest this pretty in depth analysis of the decision.Annnndddd goal post moving. Here we go with another long thread.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guns-and-the-aloha-state/id1490993194?i=1000645421973
The HSC stating that Bruen is wrong is not the same thing as defying them
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 17, 2024, 08:42:42 AM
You should read up about the practice of US courts citing British common law so you don't sound like you are trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.Wwrroonnngggg. See my 2 post abt Bruen test.
And no, CCW is not moot because it is part of the overall decision. The HSC pointed to the fact that Wilson hadn't applied for a CCW as part of their decision.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 17, 2024, 08:43:58 AM
Why are you bringing up British common law over and over?Because he wont admit he is wrong. Goal post moving has begun also.
The Bruen case was about the Second Amendment under the US Constitution.
Any arguments arising from laws before 1776 are not relevant to this discussion.
Unless British common law had jurisdiction over the United States after the Second Amendment was ratified, your posts have no meaning.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2024, 09:00:03 AM
Annnndddd goal post moving. Here we go with another long thread.
EEF: The HSC stating that Bruen is wrong is not the same thing as defying them
While his comment is technically correct, it's factually inaccurate.
The HSC did both: disagreed and stated they do not recognize the SCOTUS rulings as anything more than informative. They see no requirement for any state to obey SCOTUS rulings.
In other words, they are defying the Bruen ruling BECAUSE they disagree with it.
Post by: RSN172 on February 17, 2024, 10:15:37 AM
In other words, they are defying the Bruen ruling BECAUSE they disagree with it.
Great. Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with. The HISC just set the precedent.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 17, 2024, 10:21:11 AM
Great. Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with. The HISC just set the precedent.
That's what our criminal elites don't understand. They are leading by example and it completely undermines their own authority. Unless they plan to back it up with brute force then large parts of the state will become ungovernable.
Post by: Brystont1 on February 17, 2024, 11:52:39 AM
Actually, the Second Amendment, along with much of the Bill of Rights, were based at least in part on British laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Right that’s why the SCOTUS partly used English common law to determine if the 2A was an individual right. I don’t know of any “arms” laws during the Hawaiian kingdom era which is what I was referring to in the sentence you highlighted
Post by: groveler on February 17, 2024, 12:38:42 PM
Great. Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with. The HISC just set the precedent."No need follow any HI law you disagree with."
When it comes to most Hawaii gun laws I like that idea.
Most all other Hawaii laws should be followed, regardless
of whether you like them or not.
Keep in mind I said "Most".
:shaka:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 18, 2024, 12:04:30 PM
Great. Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with. The HISC just set the precedent.
My take on it is this.
Hawaii just said there's no relationship between the laws created by Congress or the Constitution and the interpretations made by SCOTUS.
Hawaii is pretending that by making a ruling HI doesn't agree with, the state is under no obligation to follow it since SCOTUS can't make new law. Bruen is "new law" in HI's view, just because the official interpretation has been clarified.
Unless the DOJ goes after HI government leaders for failing to follow the Constitution, there's not much anyone can do short of a slew of costly and time-wasting lawsuits.
And we all know the DOJ is the lap dog of the Democrats in power.
Post by: 4C5S on February 19, 2024, 07:32:24 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 19, 2024, 09:46:11 AM
:geekdanc: :shaka: :rofl:
Post by: hvybarrels on February 19, 2024, 10:48:35 AM
More tyranny hiding under a word salad of caring and kindness
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/sanctity-of-life-and-the-second-amendment/
Post by: RSN172 on February 19, 2024, 11:30:04 AM
Post by: ren on February 19, 2024, 11:32:18 AM
Not surprised. Every police chief of every county in Hawaii, past and present, have been against civilians carrying guns.
We need firearms manufacturers and distributors like Ronnie Barrett to deny our local police access to such dangerous weapons.
Post by: oldfart on February 19, 2024, 11:58:18 AM
Somebody got a new "Word of the Day" calendar for Christmas!:rofl:
:geekdanc: :shaka: :rofl:
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 19, 2024, 11:59:15 AM
Somebody got a new "Word of the Day" calendar for Christmas!
:geekdanc: :shaka: :rofl:
Not even word salad. More like caesars salad on steroids. :thumbsup:
Post by: BRU on February 19, 2024, 02:46:49 PM
Darryl Perry, recently retired police chief of Kauai, talks about why repealing 2A is the right thing to do
More tyranny hiding under a word salad of caring and kindness
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/sanctity-of-life-and-the-second-amendment/
And then Civil Beat also posts this on the same day
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/danny-de-gracia-we-need-to-start-talking-about-threats-to-hawaiis-security/
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 19, 2024, 03:00:03 PM
And then Civil Beat also posts this on the same dayOur lawmakers and HPD would sell everyone out in the name of safety.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/danny-de-gracia-we-need-to-start-talking-about-threats-to-hawaiis-security/
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: RSN172 on February 19, 2024, 03:03:13 PM
And then Civil Beat also posts this on the same dayOua legislacha and judicial guys no worry bout dat cause oua Aloha Spirit stay strong. We kill um wit Aloha.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/danny-de-gracia-we-need-to-start-talking-about-threats-to-hawaiis-security/
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 19, 2024, 03:32:49 PM
Oua legislacha and judicial guys no worry bout dat cause oua Aloha Spirit stay strong. We kill um wit Aloha.Aloha maddafakka
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 19, 2024, 03:40:44 PM
And then Civil Beat also posts this on the same day
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/danny-de-gracia-we-need-to-start-talking-about-threats-to-hawaiis-security/
I don't want to make light of a really grim possibility, but even if we beef up our Hawaii Civil Defense system.....
Where do we go? (answer: there's nowhere to go.) All it will do is let us know sooner when we all are going to die. At least get chance to get with family and loved ones to be together till the end.
This is why electing a POTUS is serious business. As a voter one must choose wisely.
Post by: oldfart on February 19, 2024, 03:49:59 PM
Just torpedo the Matson ships.
Checkmate....game over.
Post by: ren on February 19, 2024, 03:59:04 PM
Hawaii would be so easy to conquer.
Just torpedo the Matson ships.
Checkmate....game over.
We'll just ban torpedoes, declare harbors sensitive spaces, red flag anyone playing a chess game, raid chess halls and put up an "aloha-backed" force field around the islands. :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 19, 2024, 05:42:06 PM
We'll just ban torpedoes, declare harbors sensitive spaces and put up an "aloha-backed" force field around the islands. :shaka:Funny, but true.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on February 19, 2024, 06:39:09 PM
Hawaii would be so easy to conquer.....
Just torpedo the Matson ships.
Checkmate....game over.
Costco Kapolei egg section 6pm Monday
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTV0sVMQ/20240219-182644.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Post by: ren on February 19, 2024, 06:55:57 PM
Doug is a clown
“Hawaii has always been known historically for having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country,” Chin said, “and so you can expect that those guidelines will be challenged by people who felt emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court decision.”
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 19, 2024, 07:07:01 PM
....
Costco Kapolei egg section 6pm Monday
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTV0sVMQ/20240219-182644.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Hawaii is at the whim of the container fleet.
Lots of sheeple will be bleating pitifully pretty soon. Most of them so used to someone wiping their A$$.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 19, 2024, 07:29:14 PM
....
Costco Kapolei egg section 6pm Monday
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTV0sVMQ/20240219-182644.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Those are already eggstremely eggspensive.
Did the eggsperts state an eggsact cause, or just more eggscuses?
It might be an eggsport problem due to eggstraordinary weather.
Maybe it's as case of uneggspected demand eggceeding normal supply?
Maybe the ones that were there eggspired?
If this were more eggspansive, it could become an eggsistential threat .
Post by: hvybarrels on February 19, 2024, 07:50:27 PM
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 19, 2024, 08:06:10 PM
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: groveler on February 19, 2024, 09:56:07 PM
....I have more eggs than I know what to do with,
Costco Kapolei egg section 6pm Monday
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTV0sVMQ/20240219-182644.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
But also have to wipe chicken Schiff off my boots.
and chase hungry chickens out of my kitchen.
They know there is dog and cat food there.
I have about 2 dozen freshly hatched out chicks.
The price you pay to assure you can get fresh eggs.
There is always powdered eggs.
;D
.
Post by: RSN172 on February 19, 2024, 10:10:10 PM
Post by: oldfart on February 20, 2024, 03:39:29 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 20, 2024, 07:31:18 AM
There were a lot of people pecking up eggs last night. The sight of empty shelves sent me scrambling to walmart. I have to mention that costco has cuter chick's though.
Cute is one thing, but do they lay?
:geekdanc: :rofl:
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 20, 2024, 08:12:36 AM
I should try look for their eggs.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 20, 2024, 08:57:53 AM
Everywhere you go, you're bound to find chickens. I never thought I would find chickens roaming freely near my house in Mililani but.........
I should try look for their eggs.
KHSC has chickens. But range too far.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 20, 2024, 10:48:05 AM
Everywhere you go, you're bound to find chickens. I never thought I would find chickens roaming freely near my house in Mililani but.........
I should try look for their eggs.
Yeah, there's been a poultry population explosion in Mililani lately. The roosters are getting on my nerves crowing from midnight until after dawn.
My daughter now lives in Wahiawa and they built a small coop. They now get more eggs than they can use.
Hope they can keep up with the "fertilizer production!" :geekdanc:
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 20, 2024, 12:42:43 PM
Yeah, there's been a poultry population explosion in Mililani lately. The roosters are getting on my nerves crowing from midnight until after dawn.
My daughter now lives in Wahiawa and they built a small coop. They now get more eggs than they can use.
Hope they can keep up with the "fertilizer production!" :geekdanc:
Egg prices are crazy nowadays. When we were young we kept chickens and we always had eggs. My favorite chickens were the red hens. As big as they were they were a bit more laid back than the white ones. My uncle was a tried and true fighting chicken guy that goes to the chicken fights and either comes back with a live cock and money or a dead one that we would eat, lol!
I used to dread trying to feed those fighting cocks. They scared the hell out of me.
Post by: ren on February 20, 2024, 12:56:37 PM
KHSC has chickens. But range too far.
Why is the range too far? Was there a study? straw man....
Post by: oldfart on February 20, 2024, 12:59:01 PM
Egg prices are crazy nowadays. When we were young we kept chickens and we always had eggs. My favorite chickens were the red hens. As big as they were they were a bit more laid back than the white ones. My uncle was a tried and true fighting chicken guy that goes to the chicken fights and either comes back with a live cock and money or a dead one that we would eat, lol!...
I used to dread trying to feed those fighting cocks. They scared the hell out of me.
After I left costco, I went to Walmart to see if they had eggs. They had a lot but the prices were about 30% higher than last month. I figured something like this might happen when Petersons farm shut down. That fire at the chicken farm in Texas a few weeks ago doesn't help.
Post by: Rocky on February 20, 2024, 01:31:33 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 09:00:20 PM
Hawaiian history is now US history?
Could you use a Canadian law from the 1780s to justify a proposed US law?
We use some British legal history because we were founded as a British colony. Where a US law has a foundation in British law, it's proper to use those origins when analyzing their application today.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not expect that we should base our gun laws on the historical analogues of other countries. If they did, we might as well through the Second Amendment in the toilet.
I didn't invent the practice, I am only pointing out to you that it exists.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 20, 2024, 09:24:15 PM
I didn't invent the practice, I am only pointing out to you that it exists.Not with bruen.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 09:56:49 PM
This is not allowed in the Bruen test.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
The Bruen test specifically mentions this practice?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 09:57:33 PM
Annnndddd goal post moving. Here we go with another long thread.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
All you have to do is say you disagree and leave at that. Up to you.
If you told your kid to do a chore and he criticized your instruction but did the chore anyway I would not consider that defying you. If you consider that defying then you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't have to turn into a long thread with false accusations of goal post moving.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 10:01:35 PM
EEF: The HSC stating that Bruen is wrong is not the same thing as defying them
While his comment is technically correct, it's factually inaccurate.
The HSC did both: disagreed and stated they do not recognize the SCOTUS rulings as anything more than informative. They see no requirement for any state to obey SCOTUS rulings.
In other words, they are defying the Bruen ruling BECAUSE they disagree with it.
How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 10:02:26 PM
Darryl Perry, recently retired police chief of Kauai, talks about why repealing 2A is the right thing to do
More tyranny hiding under a word salad of caring and kindness
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/sanctity-of-life-and-the-second-amendment/
At least he is approaching it from the proper way to do it.
Post by: Brystont1 on February 20, 2024, 10:25:56 PM
How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?
Bruen did not “allow” states to have regulations on firearm carry. They merely stated that this ruling defines the word “bear” and they struck down “may issue” licensing laws. They said states “may” have regulations meaning that this ruling did not cover “constitutional carry” and that they should use the guidelines in Bruen to determine if regulations are “consistent with our nations history and tradition”.
Hawaii history is not US history.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 20, 2024, 10:47:48 PM
How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?
I answered this 4-5 pages ago. You need to work on your memory skills, or quit try to just argue for no reason other than being contrary.
Here is part of my post -- again -- saying how the HSC is DEFYING the SCOTUS rulings:
Quote
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
That last one defies several SCOTUS rulings that affirmed and reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, an individual right.
Right to keep and bear arms has been defined as an individual right of the people in more than one Supreme Court case. HSC specifically said they do not agree with that opinion, and instead hold with the minority dissent opinion.
By stating they do not agree, they are stating they are in defiance of the rule of law as interpreted by the SCOTUS. There does not have to be a specific action to be in defiance. Maybe you just don't understand what "defiance" means. The analogy I gave of a kid not honoring his bedtime is an act of definace. He didn't behave in any way other than to ignore the bedtime. He didn't protest, throw a fit or mess up the living room. He just stayed up past 9.
Defiance can be passive. Was Rosa Parks defying the law when she sat where only Whites were permitted to sit? She didn't do anything other than ride the bus as she had dome many time before. Only this time, she defied the law by ignoring it. She didn't tell a White passenger to give up their seat. She didn't make a scene. She sat on the bus.
If you don't get it, then you don't get it. If you wanted to get it, I'd tray again.
I didn't see anyone but you defending the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in the Wilson case. Do you even get why this has blown up into worldwide news? Does the term "tyranny" hold any actual meaning for you, or is that just a word you'd have to start a thought experiment to understand?
Rather than just listening to podcasts, maybe try doing real research on your own. All you're doing is pitting us against "people you heard".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 11:05:06 PM
Bruen did not “allow” states to have regulations on firearm carry. They merely stated that this ruling defines the word “bear” and they struck down “may issue” licensing laws. They said states “may” have regulations meaning that this ruling did not cover “constitutional carry” and that they should use the guidelines in Bruen to determine if regulations are “consistent with our nations history and tradition”.
Hawaii history is not US history.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the New York’s licensing regime violated the Second Amendment but wrote separately to underscore that the Court’s decision would not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for public carry based on objective criteria so long as the requirements “do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/the-bruen-decision-and-concealed-carry-licenses#:~:text=Justice%20Kavanaugh%2C%20joined%20by%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%2C%20agreed,of%20some%20special%20need%20apart%20from%20self-defense.%E2%80%9D%2021
The bolded section is what I was referring to.
If Bruen had said states may not restrict carrying firearms in public at all then this case would be in defiance. But the thing about this case is that its not just because he had a gun but he did so without following the licensing requirement.
I don't like the ruling but I wouldn't say it defies the SCOTUS. But lets say I am wrong, lets hope the SCOTUS puts the HSC in its place.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 20, 2024, 11:28:00 PM
I answered this 4-5 pages ago. You need to work on your memory skills, or quit try to just argue for no reason other than being contrary.
Here is part of my post -- again -- saying how the HSC is DEFYING the SCOTUS rulings:
Right to keep and bear arms has been defined as an individual right of the people in more than one Supreme Court case. HSC specifically said they do not agree with that opinion, and instead hold with the minority dissent opinion.
By stating they do not agree, they are stating they are in defiance of the rule of law as interpreted by the SCOTUS. There does not have to be a specific action to be in defiance. Maybe you just don't understand what "defiance" means. The analogy I gave of a kid not honoring his bedtime is an act of definace. He didn't behave in any way other than to ignore the bedtime. He didn't protest, throw a fit or mess up the living room. He just stayed up past 9.
Defiance can be passive. Was Rosa Parks defying the law when she sat where only Whites were permitted to sit? She didn't do anything other than ride the bus as she had dome many time before. Only this time, she defied the law by ignoring it. She didn't tell a White passenger to give up their seat. She didn't make a scene. She sat on the bus.
If you don't get it, then you don't get it. If you wanted to get it, I'd tray again.
I didn't see anyone but you defending the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in the Wilson case. Do you even get why this has blown up into worldwide news? Does the term "tyranny" hold any actual meaning for you, or is that just a word you'd have to start a thought experiment to understand?
Rather than just listening to podcasts, maybe try doing real research on your own. All you're doing is pitting us against "people you heard".
From your reply:
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
They were making the case that the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the US constitution. The HSC gets to interpret the meaning of the Hawaii Constitution, SCOTUS rulings do not dictate how the HSC must look at the Hawaii constitution. Maybe its your reading skills rather than my memory skills.
Of course there has to be a specific action to be in defiance. Thats why I said if your kid criticized the bed time but still went to bed at 9 he wouldn't be in defiance.
I already clearly stated that I don't like the case but I don't let me not liking the outcome affect my analysis of the case. I am not defending their decision, I am pointing it out for what it is and what it isn't. Yes I understand why it is significant, because the HSC basically trolled and stuck their noses up at the SCOTUS, but their ultimate decision on this case (the last 2 pages basically) stayed within the bounds that SCOTUS had set out in allowing states to still implement licensing requirements. People are upset at the 50 pages of fluff, and rightly so, but being angry at that fluff seems to mislead you about the actual part of their decision, about Wilson's standing and their interpretation of the Hawaii constitution.,
Tyranny? Thats a bit of a hyperbole even for you. Maybe farther down the road, but not at this point.
So listening to legal experts on a podcast to help me understand better the complexities of constitutional law doesn't count as research but a lawyer on Youtube does? I read the whole decision, I "did the research" but that doesn't work for you either. Sounds like you are shopping around for an answer you like.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2024, 01:13:02 AM
From your reply:
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
They were making the case that the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the US constitution. The HSC gets to interpret the meaning of the Hawaii Constitution, SCOTUS rulings do not dictate how the HSC must look at the Hawaii constitution. Maybe its your reading skills rather than my memory skills.
Of course there has to be a specific action to be in defiance. Thats why I said if your kid criticized the bed time but still went to bed at 9 he wouldn't be in defiance.
I already clearly stated that I don't like the case but I don't let me not liking the outcome affect my analysis of the case. I am not defending their decision, I am pointing it out for what it is and what it isn't. Yes I understand why it is significant, because the HSC basically trolled and stuck their noses up at the SCOTUS, but their ultimate decision on this case (the last 2 pages basically) stayed within the bounds that SCOTUS had set out in allowing states to still implement licensing requirements. People are upset at the 50 pages of fluff, and rightly so, but being angry at that fluff seems to mislead you about the actual part of their decision, about Wilson's standing and their interpretation of the Hawaii constitution.,
Tyranny? Thats a bit of a hyperbole even for you. Maybe farther down the road, but not at this point.
So listening to legal experts on a podcast to help me understand better the complexities of constitutional law doesn't count as research but a lawyer on Youtube does? I read the whole decision, I "did the research" but that doesn't work for you either. Sounds like you are shopping around for an answer you like.
Hopelessly argumentative.
You have no facts, only contrary opinions and the opinions of the few people you bother to listen to on their podcasts.
The HSC didn't bother to address the fact that the HI right to keep and bear arms is identical to the 2nd Amendment word for word. They simply said "It means what WE say it means," and will defy the SCOTUS precedences on the matter.
And if you don't think quashing individual rights after the highest court IN THE NATION, of which HI is a part, gave us all the 411 on 2A being an individual right ... that that is not tyrannical government behavior, go do some more of that research you bragged about -- because you'd be wrong.
i'm shopping around for anything resembling honesty and intelligence. I must be shopping at the wrong place, because you obviously have none to offer.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 06:17:47 AM
The Bruen test specifically mentions this practice?Read it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 06:18:47 AM
All you have to do is say you disagree and leave at that. Up to you.
If you told your kid to do a chore and he criticized your instruction but did the chore anyway I would not consider that defying you. If you consider that defying then you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't have to turn into a long thread with false accusations of goal post moving.
Bad example. Thanks for playing. Keep the long thread going again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 06:19:25 AM
At least he is approaching it from the proper way to do it.Wrong
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 06:21:27 AM
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the New York’s licensing regime violated the Second Amendment but wrote separately to underscore that the Court’s decision would not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for public carry based on objective criteria so long as the requirements “do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.Hahahhahhaha cherry picking.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/the-bruen-decision-and-concealed-carry-licenses#:~:text=Justice%20Kavanaugh%2C%20joined%20by%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%2C%20agreed,of%20some%20special%20need%20apart%20from%20self-defense.%E2%80%9D%2021
The bolded section is what I was referring to.
If Bruen had said states may not restrict carrying firearms in public at all then this case would be in defiance. But the thing about this case is that its not just because he had a gun but he did so without following the licensing requirement.
I don't like the ruling but I wouldn't say it defies the SCOTUS. But lets say I am wrong, lets hope the SCOTUS puts the HSC in its place.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 06:22:16 AM
From your reply:Hahahhahaha
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
They were making the case that the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the US constitution. The HSC gets to interpret the meaning of the Hawaii Constitution, SCOTUS rulings do not dictate how the HSC must look at the Hawaii constitution. Maybe its your reading skills rather than my memory skills.
Of course there has to be a specific action to be in defiance. Thats why I said if your kid criticized the bed time but still went to bed at 9 he wouldn't be in defiance.
I already clearly stated that I don't like the case but I don't let me not liking the outcome affect my analysis of the case. I am not defending their decision, I am pointing it out for what it is and what it isn't. Yes I understand why it is significant, because the HSC basically trolled and stuck their noses up at the SCOTUS, but their ultimate decision on this case (the last 2 pages basically) stayed within the bounds that SCOTUS had set out in allowing states to still implement licensing requirements. People are upset at the 50 pages of fluff, and rightly so, but being angry at that fluff seems to mislead you about the actual part of their decision, about Wilson's standing and their interpretation of the Hawaii constitution.,
Tyranny? Thats a bit of a hyperbole even for you. Maybe farther down the road, but not at this point.
So listening to legal experts on a podcast to help me understand better the complexities of constitutional law doesn't count as research but a lawyer on Youtube does? I read the whole decision, I "did the research" but that doesn't work for you either. Sounds like you are shopping around for an answer you like.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 07:49:03 AM
I answered this 4-5 pages ago. You need to work on your memory skills, or quit try to just argue for no reason other than being contrary.
Here is part of my post -- again -- saying how the HSC is DEFYING the SCOTUS rulings:
Right to keep and bear arms has been defined as an individual right of the people in more than one Supreme Court case. HSC specifically said they do not agree with that opinion, and instead hold with the minority dissent opinion.
By stating they do not agree, they are stating they are in defiance of the rule of law as interpreted by the SCOTUS. There does not have to be a specific action to be in defiance. Maybe you just don't understand what "defiance" means. The analogy I gave of a kid not honoring his bedtime is an act of definace. He didn't behave in any way other than to ignore the bedtime. He didn't protest, throw a fit or mess up the living room. He just stayed up past 9.
Defiance can be passive. Was Rosa Parks defying the law when she sat where only Whites were permitted to sit? She didn't do anything other than ride the bus as she had dome many time before. Only this time, she defied the law by ignoring it. She didn't tell a White passenger to give up their seat. She didn't make a scene. She sat on the bus.
If you don't get it, then you don't get it. If you wanted to get it, I'd tray again.
I didn't see anyone but you defending the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in the Wilson case. Do you even get why this has blown up into worldwide news? Does the term "tyranny" hold any actual meaning for you, or is that just a word you'd have to start a thought experiment to understand?
Rather than just listening to podcasts, maybe try doing real research on your own. All you're doing is pitting us against "people you heard".
He does think red flag laws are constitutional, especially HI's one.
This was mentioned many times in either this thread of other threads. Which is why I didn't reply. All he's gonna do is move goal post instead of admitting he was wrong and it ending there. Lets see his replies tonight.
Post by: ren on February 21, 2024, 07:59:59 AM
Post by: Brystont1 on February 21, 2024, 08:00:12 AM
From your reply:
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
They were making the case that the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the US constitution. The HSC gets to interpret the meaning of the Hawaii Constitution, SCOTUS rulings do not dictate how the HSC must look at the Hawaii constitution. Maybe its your reading skills rather than my memory skills.
Of course there has to be a specific action to be in defiance. Thats why I said if your kid criticized the bed time but still went to bed at 9 he wouldn't be in defiance.
I already clearly stated that I don't like the case but I don't let me not liking the outcome affect my analysis of the case. I am not defending their decision, I am pointing it out for what it is and what it isn't. Yes I understand why it is significant, because the HSC basically trolled and stuck their noses up at the SCOTUS, but their ultimate decision on this case (the last 2 pages basically) stayed within the bounds that SCOTUS had set out in allowing states to still implement licensing requirements. People are upset at the 50 pages of fluff, and rightly so, but being angry at that fluff seems to mislead you about the actual part of their decision, about Wilson's standing and their interpretation of the Hawaii constitution.,
Tyranny? Thats a bit of a hyperbole even for you. Maybe farther down the road, but not at this point.
So listening to legal experts on a podcast to help me understand better the complexities of constitutional law doesn't count as research but a lawyer on Youtube does? I read the whole decision, I "did the research" but that doesn't work for you either. Sounds like you are shopping around for an answer you like.
Stop saying that SCOTUS allowed states to continue licensing. They did not, they were narrowing there ruling to cover may issue permitting schemes and NOT constitutional carry. They still need to justify the law using historical tradition and they did NOT.
Again your analogy is terrible, if you told your kid to wash dishes by hand and not the dishwasher because it’s broken and they went ahead and used the dishwasher anyway is that not defiance even though they washed the dishes?
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 21, 2024, 08:09:49 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2024, 08:33:37 AM
Seems like the HSC wants to please the DNC which is in cahoots with the CCP.
It's harder to invade when your population has their own guns and doesn't need to do Ukraine style of issuing.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2024, 10:41:49 AM
Stop saying that SCOTUS allowed states to continue licensing. They did not, they were narrowing there ruling to cover may issue permitting schemes and NOT constitutional carry. They still need to justify the law using historical tradition and they did NOT.
Again your analogy is terrible, if you told your kid to wash dishes by hand and not the dishwasher because it’s broken and they went ahead and used the dishwasher anyway is that not defiance even though they washed the dishes?
He can't connect an analogy that goes "right" with an opinion that goes (wrongly) "left" if he already believes left is the correct choice regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
It takes a few years before a child can understand and visualize abstract concepts like numbers, math and written language.
This one seems to have a real problem with abstract thought unless he's making crap up to make some point.
I'm thinking of starting a school to teach pigs how to sing. Might as well get paid if I'm going to suffer the frustration!
Post by: rpoL98 on February 21, 2024, 02:32:37 PM
He can't connect an analogy that goes "right" with an opinion that goes (wrongly) "left" if he already believes left is the correct choice regardless of any evidence to the contrary.be sure to put some lipstick on those singing pigs. Score some bonus points with the media photo op. FB, IG and tik-tok. could go viral, for a day. Put some name-tags on those cuties, with the Hawaii SC justices.
It takes a few years before a child can understand and visualize abstract concepts like numbers, math and written language.
This one seems to have a real problem with abstract thought unless he's making crap up to make some point.
I'm thinking of starting a school to teach pigs how to sing. Might as well get paid if I'm going to suffer the frustration!
Post by: zippz on February 21, 2024, 04:11:51 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2024, 11:05:18 PM
Hopelessly argumentative.
You have no facts, only contrary opinions and the opinions of the few people you bother to listen to on their podcasts.
The HSC didn't bother to address the fact that the HI right to keep and bear arms is identical to the 2nd Amendment word for word. They simply said "It means what WE say it means," and will defy the SCOTUS precedences on the matter.
And if you don't think quashing individual rights after the highest court IN THE NATION, of which HI is a part, gave us all the 411 on 2A being an individual right ... that that is not tyrannical government behavior, go do some more of that research you bragged about -- because you'd be wrong.
i'm shopping around for anything resembling honesty and intelligence. I must be shopping at the wrong place, because you obviously have none to offer.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Wrong, I gave you facts, now you just going to pretend I didn't? Here you go again, seeking to cherry pick people who say what you want to hear and dismissing others as just a few people on a podcast. I even used the excerpt you posted to show the flaw in your reasoning. Just because the language is identical doesn't mean the HSC has to interpret the language in the Hawaii constitution in the same way the SCOTUS interprets the language of the second amendment. You are just claiming so without ever proving it.
You are also wrong that the HSC didn't bother to address the identical language. They addressed it on page 19. Perhaps you should read the decision before scolding me. How does your foot taste?
You also claimed that any history prior to Hawaii becoming a state doesn't count under the Bruen test. Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument? Feel free to provide proof of this position.
Think about it, if the Bruen test made it so that only historical precedent counted in applying gun regulations but any gun regulations prior to the constitution being written didn't count then it would be meaningless because you couldn't use old ones and you couldn't pass new ones without a reliance on old ones.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2024, 11:06:24 PM
Bad example. Thanks for playing. Keep the long thread going again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
That's not a rebuttal.
We can end this discussion here if you want, just let the topic be. Takes two to tango.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2024, 11:08:03 PM
Wrong
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You are telling me that changing the constitution is not the right way to go about changing the constitution? I think you need to read the constitution...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2024, 11:15:01 PM
Stop saying that SCOTUS allowed states to continue licensing. They did not, they were narrowing there ruling to cover may issue permitting schemes and NOT constitutional carry. They still need to justify the law using historical tradition and they did NOT.
Again your analogy is terrible, if you told your kid to wash dishes by hand and not the dishwasher because it’s broken and they went ahead and used the dishwasher anyway is that not defiance even though they washed the dishes?
I quoted what Kavanaugh wrote, I am not making anything up.
If a cop told you to move your car and you gave him the middle finger while driving away you still complied. The HSC basically just gave the SCOTUS the middle finger but they didn't refuse to enforce the Bruen ruling. The HSC skated around the issue by saying Wilson didn't have standing since he had never applied for the CCW permit. The HSC did make a case for historical tradition, you can try to pick it apart of course but saying they did not is factually incorrect.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 07:47:48 AM
Wrong, I gave you facts, now you just going to pretend I didn't? Here you go again, seeking to cherry pick people who say what you want to hear and dismissing others as just a few people on a podcast. I even used the excerpt you posted to show the flaw in your reasoning. Just because the language is identical doesn't mean the HSC has to interpret the language in the Hawaii constitution in the same way the SCOTUS interprets the language of the second amendment. You are just claiming so without ever proving it.Hahahahha
You are also wrong that the HSC didn't bother to address the identical language. They addressed it on page 19. Perhaps you should read the decision before scolding me. How does your foot taste?
You also claimed that any history prior to Hawaii becoming a state doesn't count under the Bruen test. Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument? Feel free to provide proof of this position.
Think about it, if the Bruen test made it so that only historical precedent counted in applying gun regulations but any gun regulations prior to the constitution being written didn't count then it would be meaningless because you couldn't use old ones and you couldn't pass new ones without a reliance on old ones.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 07:48:15 AM
That's not a rebuttal.Yes it is a rebuttle. Figure out why i stated this
We can end this discussion here if you want, just let the topic be. Takes two to tango.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 07:48:37 AM
You are telling me that changing the constitution is not the right way to go about changing the constitution? I think you need to read the constitution...Hahahhaha again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 07:49:50 AM
I quoted what Kavanaugh wrote, I am not making anything up.Read it again.
If a cop told you to move your car and you gave him the middle finger while driving away you still complied. The HSC basically just gave the SCOTUS the middle finger but they didn't refuse to enforce the Bruen ruling. The HSC skated around the issue by saying Wilson didn't have standing since he had never applied for the CCW permit. The HSC did make a case for historical tradition, you can try to pick it apart of course but saying they did not is factually incorrect.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 24, 2024, 10:27:42 AM
I quoted what Kavanaugh wrote, I am not making anything up.
If a cop told you to move your car and you gave him the middle finger while driving away you still complied. The HSC basically just gave the SCOTUS the middle finger but they didn't refuse to enforce the Bruen ruling. The HSC skated around the issue by saying Wilson didn't have standing since he had never applied for the CCW permit. The HSC did make a case for historical tradition, you can try to pick it apart of course but saying they did not is factually incorrect.
1. The order:
- Cop: "Move your car."
- SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases. States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance. SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.
2. The action:
- Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.
- HSC: Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.
3. The result:
- Driver: Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.
- HSC: Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government).
Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.
Try again.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 11:10:23 AM
1. The order:Exactlly. Bad examples again.
- Cop: "Move your car."
- SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases. States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance. SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.
2. The action:
- Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.
- HSC: Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.
3. The result:
- Driver: Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.
- HSC: Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government).
Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.
Try again.
Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test, in CA alan beck won against their baton ban.
CA cited 13th century common England laws as part of their "history/tradition" and the judge said no can do.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 24, 2024, 02:14:30 PM
Exactlly. Bad examples again.
Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test, in CA alan beck won against their baton ban.
CA cited 13th century common England laws as part of their "history/tradition" and the judge said no can do.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.
Either he's trying to protect his master (Cops work for the government), or he just wants to argue -- this time saying an obviously wrong argument will still satisfy the letter of the Bruen test. i.e. "The HSC did make a case for historical tradition, you can try to pick it apart of course but saying they did not is factually incorrect."
It's not picking it apart when the argument is out of the timeframe and jurisdiction required under Bruen.
If your teacher tells you everyone must submit a project for the Science Fair, and you take a piece of ice from the lunchroom and say that's your project, i don't think you deserve any points for participating.
Same applies to arguments for historical analogues which do not satisfy even the most basic test requirements. A stupid argument is not an argument. It's a piece of ice you submitted because you didn't have a real argument to present.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 24, 2024, 05:41:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.CA presented 250 examples of what they consider "history/tradition" and the judge shot it down in the Alan Beck baton lawsuit. All were wrong.
Either he's trying to protect his master (Cops work for the government), or he just wants to argue -- this time saying an obviously wrong argument will still satisfy the letter of the Bruen test. i.e. "The HSC did make a case for historical tradition, you can try to pick it apart of course but saying they did not is factually incorrect."
It's not picking it apart when the argument is out of the timeframe and jurisdiction required under Bruen.
If your teacher tells you everyone must submit a project for the Science Fair, and you take a piece of ice from the lunchroom and say that's your project, i don't think you deserve any points for participating.
Same applies to arguments for historical analogues which do not satisfy even the most basic test requirements. A stupid argument is not an argument. It's a piece of ice you submitted because you didn't have a real argument to present.
CAs expert also said 14 states had a billy club law. Only 7 did. The judge called them on their BS too.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on February 24, 2024, 05:43:57 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why...
You're thoroughly distracted, right?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 24, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
You're thoroughly distracted, right?
That would imply i spend more time thinking about it than i actually do ...
:geekdanc:
I'm just raising the question. He has an agenda -- that's certain.
I could guess what that would be, but there's a very long list of options. Most fall under the category Useful Idiot.
Post by: RSN172 on February 25, 2024, 05:57:35 AM
I'm just raising the question. He has an agenda -- that's certain.
Maybe he one attorney and trying to get Green appoint him as judge.
Post by: macsak on February 25, 2024, 07:37:32 AM
he 5-0...
Maybe he one attorney and trying to get Green appoint him as judge.
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 26, 2024, 07:51:11 AM
Yay, Louisiana! :thumbsup:
Boo aloha spirit Hawaii..........
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 26, 2024, 08:26:23 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/another-state-races-to-become-constitutional-carry-state/ar-BB1iUjbV?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e75ac662279949549f981fc2aef92de3&ei=28
Yay, Louisiana! :thumbsup:
Boo aloha spirit Hawaii..........
States like HI, NY, CA will never have this.......but then again, I though HI would never issue CCW's either, so....
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 26, 2024, 09:46:48 AM
cause Aloha Spirit. Only for show. :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 26, 2024, 09:56:29 AM
States like HI, NY, CA will never have this.......but then again, I though HI would never issue CCW's either, so....
Yeah. It only took HI about 75 years to be MADE to issue permits -- made by the Supreme Court.
Can only imagine the time and force that will be needed to enact constitutional carry after seeing the hissy fit the state's throwing in the wake of Bruen.
I look at these violations of our federally protected rights, and I have to ask, "Where's this Aloha they speak of?" Why does it only go one way? Individuals carrying publicly somehow violates the spirit of Aloha (not a law), but violating all gun owners' individual rights under the US Constitution is totally acceptable?
:wacko:
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 26, 2024, 10:12:03 AM
Yeah. It only took HI about 75 years to be MADE to issue permits -- made by the Supreme Court.
Can only imagine the time and force that will be needed to enact constitutional carry after seeing the hissy fit the state's throwing in the wake of Bruen.
I look at these violations of our federally protected rights, and I have to ask, "Where's this Aloha they speak of?" Why does it only go one way? Individuals carrying publicly somehow violates the spirit of Aloha (not a law), but violating all gun owners' individual rights under the US Constitution is totally acceptable?
:wacko:
Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI. Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 26, 2024, 10:17:12 AM
Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI. Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.
Thank you, President Trump -- and his Supreme Court Justice picks!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 26, 2024, 10:50:07 AM
Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI. Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.
Similar could be said with the repeal of Roe v Wade, a self-described Socialist not only running for President, but nearly defeating HRC for the nomination, or a US President visiting North Korea.
Just a few of the many "not in my lifetime" moments we've see the last couple of decades.
I never thought I'd see men pretending to be women playing female sports and using women's restrooms while I'm forced to treat that as normal, a politician who failed to treat classified as anything close to classified be let off completely by the FBI and DOJ after they found enough evidence to convict of multiple counts, or Americans protesting in favor of a terrorist group who killed hundreds of innocent Israelis and non-israelis.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2024, 09:31:26 PM
Yes it is a rebuttle. Figure out why i stated this
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Nope.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2024, 09:33:56 PM
1. The order:
- Cop: "Move your car."
- SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases. States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance. SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.
2. The action:
- Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.
- HSC: Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.
3. The result:
- Driver: Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.
- HSC: Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government).
Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.
Try again.
The red portion is where I would say you are inaccurately stating what the HSC said in their ruling.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2024, 09:36:39 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.
There is your problem, I am not defending the decision. I already criticized parts of it but I am just accurately explaining what it is. You can't see the difference between explaining and defending.
If I said Hitler ate babies and you said there is no evidence he did, would it be fair of me to say you were defending Hitler? No, of course not.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2024, 10:53:58 PM
Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test,
Strawman.
I didn't say that. I gave examples of times where courts cited non-US laws.
I said:
"Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument?"
You too are free to point out where Bruen decision, or any other SCOTUS decision says that pre-USA or pre-USA foreign laws/rulings cannot be used.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2024, 12:51:09 AM
Nope.Cause u know whats up. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2024, 12:51:43 AM
There is your problem, I am not defending the decision. I already criticized parts of it but I am just accurately explaining what it is. You can't see the difference between explaining and defending.Another bad example.
If I said Hitler ate babies and you said there is no evidence he did, would it be fair of me to say you were defending Hitler? No, of course not.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2024, 12:52:56 AM
Strawman.
I didn't say that. I gave examples of times where courts cited non-US laws.
I said:
"Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument?"
You too are free to point out where Bruen decision, or any other SCOTUS decision says that pre-USA or pre-USA foreign laws/rulings cannot be used.
And not relevant as Bruen addresses this. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 27, 2024, 09:22:06 AM
The red portion is where I would say you are inaccurately stating what the HSC said in their ruling.
Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?
Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.
Keep trying to redefine the word "defiance" all you want. It won't change reality.
Quote
Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrorsHSC is stating they hold a contrary opinion from the SCOTUS rulings which affirmed the right to carry exists nationally -- of which HI is a part. HI is saying there is no such right if they say so.
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read
those words differently than the current United States Supreme
Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public.
Quote
The State appeals an order dismissing two “place to keep”Sounds like the HI circuit court agreed with the SCOTUS opinions and dismissed the charges.
offenses, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-25 (2011) (pistol
or revolver) and § 134-27 (2011) (ammunition) filed against
Christopher Wilson. Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit dismissed the charges.
Quote
The State challenges Wilson’s standing. The State saysThe state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case. If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else. Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits. You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.
Wilson did not bother to apply for a carry license and thereby
satisfy HRS § 134-9 (2011), Hawaiʻi’s license to carry law. So
he can’t bring a Bruen-based constitutional challenge to HRS
§ 134-25 and § 134-27.
The state argued using circular reasoning saying that since Wilson didn't avail himself of the state's unconstitutional process and apply for a license, then he can't argue that the law is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? The whole point of having a Bill of Rights is so you don't have to comply with laws that violate them -- especially not just so you can argue in court that you shouldn't have to follow those bad laws.
Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor. Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot. The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
Quote
Because the State charged Wilson with place to keep
offenses, we conclude that Wilson has standing to challenge the
constitutionality of those laws. A criminal defendant has
standing to level a constitutional attack against the charged.
And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:
Quote
We reject Wilson’s constitutional challenges. Conventional
interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of
firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear
arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. In Hawaiʻi, there is no
state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.
Bruen snubs federalism principles. Still, the United
States Supreme Court does not strip states of all sovereignty to
pass traditional police power laws designed to protect people.
Wilson has standing to challenge HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-
27(a). But those laws do not violate his federal constitutional
rights.
Basically, they decided that under HI law, there is no right similar to federal constitutional 2A rights. Then they say HI laws don't violate federal constitutional rights. That's bogus -- it's circular reasoning. They are using their interpretation of state constitutional rights to defy Wilson's rights as defined under SCOTUS case law.
Quote
The circuit court denied Wilson’s motion to dismiss in JulyThe court relied on a 9th Circus ruling saying that individuals in HI have no right to carry OPENLY. The facts show that Wilson was carrying CONCEALED. Not sure the HCS panel ever took English comprehension in school.
2021. It relied on Young v. Hawaiʻi. There, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does not provide
a right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.
Quote
The Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney (State)The circuit court judge AGREED WITH WILSON, that the law restricting firearms to one's home and other specific locales was unconstitutional.
countered.
First, the Second Amendment allows for some restrictions
per Heller and Bruen. For instance, registration and permitting
are constitutional. Second, unlike the Bruen plaintiffs, Wilson
illegally possessed a handgun because he never tried to follow
Hawaiʻi’s firearm registration and license to carry law. Because
he didn’t apply for a permit, he lacks standing to raise a
Second Amendment challenge.
Circuit Court Judge Kirstin Hamman granted Wilson’s second
motion to dismiss in August 2022. HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-
27(a) infringed Wilson’s constitutional right to keep and bear a
firearm for self-defense.
One more time the lower HI court got it right as they AGREED with prior SCOTUS rulings and precedents.
Quote
The State had failed to meet its burden to show how HRSOnce a case is adjudicated with prejudice, it can never be charged again.
§ 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) are “consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The circuit court
also found that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) made “no
exceptions for carrying firearms outside the home for selfdefense purposes.”
[There are exceptions in those laws -
“[e]xcept as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9.” This
mistake though is immaterial to our decision.]
The court dismissed counts 1 and 2 with prejudice.
HSC then cites a NY ruling (go figure) to support the claim that
Quote
“Failing to seek aAgain, you must first follow an unconstitutional law before you can argue that the law is unconstitutional. That's Catch 22 material. HSC specifically stated that's their reasoning:
license before roaming the streets with a loaded firearm is not
abiding by the law, and nothing in the Second Amendment requires
that it be tolerated.”
Quote
Wilson says HRS § 134-9 “may be unconstitutional” and that
it is unreasonable to “[r]equire[] defendants to apply for
licenses pursuant [to] a potentially unconstitutional statute as
a prerequisite to challenging other statutes[.]” HRS § 134-9 is
unconstitutional, Wilson’s argument goes, so he should not have
to apply for a license to challenge the law.
We disagree. Wilson has no standing to challenge HRS
§ 134-9 without applying for a license.
Quote
Had Wilson followed the
HRS § 134-9 application process, and been denied, then he might
have standing to challenge that law’s constitutionality in his
criminal case.
This all happened in 2017. The Bruen decision was in 2022. So, even if Wilson had applied for a license to carry, we all know it would have been summarily denied. End of story. For the state to say he should have applied for one in order to avail himself of a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous on its face, particularly when the predictable result would have been no license being issued.
HSC then goes on to reiterate that they interpret HI's constitution differently than SCOTUS interprets the US Constitution. The court misapplied the precedent they cited by siding with the plaintiff, when the ruling clearly says that if the state constitution gives the win to the defendant, then there's no need to argue about what the US Constitution says.
Quote
Thus, we interpret the Hawaiʻi Constitution first. And mayAgain -- English comprehension.
not get to the United States Constitution. See State v. Kono,
152 A.3d 1, 29 n.29 (Conn. 2016) (“If we address the state
constitutional claim first and decide it in favor of the
defendant, there is no reason to address the federal
constitutional claim; for purposes of that case, the defendant
is entitled to prevail under the state constitution, and it
simply does not matter which way the claim would have been
decided under the federal constitution.”); State v. Moylett, 836
P.2d 1329, 1332 (Or. 1992) (“if no state law, including the
state constitution, resolves the issues, courts then should turn
for assistance to the Constitution of the United States”).
Then the HSC breaks into a long-winded and convoluted dissertation. Part of the that is the state trying to argue:
Quote
The State argues Wilson’s handgun-toting conduct is notThey are saying that, if you are committing a crime (trespassing), then your right to carry under the US Constitution is no longer protected.
saved by the right to bear arms. He trespassed, a crime. He’s
not “law abiding.” The State’s position makes sense in the
abstract. Neither Bruen, nor any case, protect a right to
commit a crime while armed.
That's another bogus argument. Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his. More circular reasoning. You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules. Name another right that works like that. If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too? Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?
At least the HSC got that right, saying:
Quote
The State’s argument about Wilson’s alleged criminalScore one for good judgement.
conduct does not apply. Wilson’s criminal trespass charge
(count 4) is not before this court. And it’s a trial matter.
The parties dispute the facts in declarations attached to their
motion to dismiss briefing. These declarations are fair game
for now. They comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule
47(a) (“If a motion requires the consideration of facts not
appearing of record, it shall be supported by affidavit or
declaration.”).
Wilson denies trespassing. Wilson says that he and his
friends “were hiking that night to look at the moon and Native
Hawaiian plants.” They did not see any “No Trespassing” signs.
For purposes of the motion to dismiss, Wilson’s alleged criminal
conduct does not prevent him from challenging the charges under
the Second Amendment and article I, section 17.
Then HSC went off the rails. They cited a previous HI case in which the right to keep and bear arms for individuals did not exist in the state:
Quote
Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, andBasically, because a judge ruled in 1993 what the state constitution section 17 means, all before Heller, Bruen and other cases decided in favor of the 2A right to carry, the HSC now defies the SCOTUS rulings under the belief that:
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.
Quote
We believe that if article I, section 17 meant to provideWell, nowhere in the 1A does it say you have the right to publish protected speech on the Internet without government interference either, but that happens to be a fact. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but this reasoning is just mind-blowing. Everyone who studies the Constitutions knows and understands that the Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate what your rights are, excluding anything that's not a right. It states what specific rights AMONG ALL RIGHTS -- listed or not -- that the government must honor and how it must go about doing that (i.e. must not be infringed). Looking at the other rights, they are in no way all inclusive either. I bet the HSC still thinks abortion is a constitutional right. Where is that written, exactly?
an individual right to carry deadly weapons in public for selfdefense, then it would say so.
Quote
We conclude that the authors and ratifiers of the HawaiʻiTo use their reasoning, if HI adopted the 2A wording from the US Constitution because they agreed with its meaning in 1950, then isn't that the state's mistake?
Constitution imagined a collective right. Our understanding
aligns with what the Second Amendment meant in 1950 when Hawaiʻi
copied the federal constitution’s language. And in 1968 and
1978 when Hawaiʻi’s people kept those words.
To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text? Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.
And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:
Quote
In Hawaiʻi, the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutionalSo, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?
interpretation. See Sunoco, 153 Hawaiʻi at 363, 537 P.3d at 1210
(Eddins, J., concurring). When this court exercises “power on
behalf of the people and in fulfillment of [our]
responsibilities, obligations, and service to the people” we
“may contemplate and reside with the life force and give
consideration to the ‘Aloha Spirit.’” HRS § 5-7.5(b) (2009).
The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated
lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons
during day-to-day activities.
This belief is why HI is being roasted now.
If you can't see how this opinion defies the rulings handed down by the SCOTUS, then you're being willfully argumentative. Nobody can help anyone who refuses to believe what's in front of their eyes.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2024, 12:05:31 PM
Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?
Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.
Keep trying to redefine the word "defiance" all you want. It won't change reality.
HSC is stating they hold a contrary opinion from the SCOTUS rulings which affirmed the right to carry exists nationally -- of which HI is a part. HI is saying there is no such right if they say so.
Sounds like the HI circuit court agreed with the SCOTUS opinions and dismissed the charges.
The state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case. If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else. Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits. You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.
The state argued using circular reasoning saying that since Wilson didn't avail himself of the state's unconstitutional process and apply for a license, then he can't argue that the law is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? The whole point of having a Bill of Rights is so you don't have to comply with laws that violate them -- especially not just so you can argue in court that you shouldn't have to follow those bad laws.
Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor. Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot. The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:
Basically, they decided that under HI law, there is no right similar to federal constitutional 2A rights. Then they say HI laws don't violate federal constitutional rights. That's bogus -- it's circular reasoning. They are using their interpretation of state constitutional rights to defy Wilson's rights as defined under SCOTUS case law.
The court relied on a 9th Circus ruling saying that individuals in HI have no right to carry OPENLY. The facts show that Wilson was carrying CONCEALED. Not sure the HCS panel ever took English comprehension in school.
The circuit court judge AGREED WITH WILSON, that the law restricting firearms to one's home and other specific locales was unconstitutional.
One more time the lower HI court got it right as they AGREED with prior SCOTUS rulings and precedents.
Once a case is adjudicated with prejudice, it can never be charged again.
HSC then cites a NY ruling (go figure) to support the claim that Again, you must first follow an unconstitutional law before you can argue that the law is unconstitutional. That's Catch 22 material. HSC specifically stated that's their reasoning:
This all happened in 2017. The Bruen decision was in 2022. So, even if Wilson had applied for a license to carry, we all know it would have been summarily denied. End of story. For the state to say he should have applied for one in order to avail himself of a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous on its face, particularly when the predictable result would have been no license being issued.
HSC then goes on to reiterate that they interpret HI's constitution differently than SCOTUS interprets the US Constitution. The court misapplied the precedent they cited by siding with the plaintiff, when the ruling clearly says that if the state constitution gives the win to the defendant, then there's no need to argue about what the US Constitution says.Again -- English comprehension.
Then the HSC breaks into a long-winded and convoluted dissertation. Part of the that is the state trying to argue:They are saying that, if you are committing a crime (trespassing), then your right to carry under the US Constitution is no longer protected.
That's another bogus argument. Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his. More circular reasoning. You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules. Name another right that works like that. If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too? Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?
At least the HSC got that right, saying:Score one for good judgement.
Then HSC went off the rails. They cited a previous HI case in which the right to keep and bear arms for individuals did not exist in the state:Basically, because a judge ruled in 1993 what the state constitution section 17 means, all before Heller, Bruen and other cases decided in favor of the 2A right to carry, the HSC now defies the SCOTUS rulings under the belief that:Well, nowhere in the 1A does it say you have the right to publish protected speech on the Internet without government interference either, but that happens to be a fact. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but this reasoning is just mind-blowing. Everyone who studies the Constitutions knows and understands that the Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate what your rights are, excluding anything that's not a right. It states what specific rights AMONG ALL RIGHTS -- listed or not -- that the government must honor and how it must go about doing that (i.e. must not be infringed). Looking at the other rights, they are in no way all inclusive either. I bet the HSC still thinks abortion is a constitutional right. Where is that written, exactly?
To use their reasoning, if HI adopted the 2A wording from the US Constitution because they agreed with its meaning in 1950, then isn't that the state's mistake?
To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text? Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.
And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:So, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?
This belief is why HI is being roasted now.
If you can't see how this opinion defies the rulings handed down by the SCOTUS, then you're being willfully argumentative. Nobody can help anyone who refuses to believe what's in front of their eyes.
Thanks for taking the time. I stopped doing so becasue all he will do is argue more, move goal post, etc...Instead of admitting he's wrong and the threads being much shorter.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 27, 2024, 12:59:19 PM
Thanks for taking the time. I stopped doing so becasue all he will do is argue more, move goal post, etc...Instead of admitting he's wrong and the threads being much shorter.
he only skimmed the document long enough to find a couple of arguments he thought supported his argumentative position. In reality, if he bothered to read the whole decision, the things he brought up were arguments the state made, and all but one of those he posted were ruled against. All those he brought up were ruled against by the circuit court.
I challenged him twice to actually read the decision, and he finally clicked the link. Unfortunately, he only saw enough to make him look even less informed.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 27, 2024, 01:10:16 PM
:shake:
The HSC said that the SCOTUS is "another authority" that the state can either accept or deny the majority opinion in the court's decisions. They go to great lengths to point out that carry in public is not an individual right under the Hawaii Constitution regardless of what SCOTUS says about the 2A under Bruen.
Rewind to 2022, and we see the HI government and police departments jumping through their buttholes to change the state's "may issue" CCW process to "shall issue."
If the HSC is correct, then why would the state make such an effort to start approving CC licenses while simultaneously looking for ways to make it harder and costlier for applicants? After all, SCOTUS can't tell HI what to do if the state already made decisions that oppose the new rulings, right?
Sounds like this "state law takes precedence over the federal constitution" BS just appeared out of thin air in the Wilson case -- supported by a wrongly interpreted HI precedent.
If what HSC put out is true, then there was no reason for HI to stop denying all CC License applications.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2024, 03:15:34 PM
I was going back and re-reading some of these posts. Something jumped out at me.
:shake:
The HSC said that the SCOTUS is "another authority" that the state can either accept or deny the majority opinion in the court's decisions. They go to great lengths to point out that carry in public is not an individual right under the Hawaii Constitution regardless of what SCOTUS says about the 2A under Bruen.
Rewind to 2022, and we see the HI government and police departments jumping through their buttholes to change the state's "may issue" CCW process to "shall issue."
If the HSC is correct, then why would the state make such an effort to start approving CC licenses while simultaneously looking for ways to make it harder and costlier for applicants? After all, SCOTUS can't tell HI what to do if the state already made decisions that oppose the new rulings, right?
Sounds like this "state law takes precedence over the federal constitution" BS just appeared out of thin air in the Wilson case -- supported by a wrongly interpreted HI precedent.
If what HSC put out is true, then there was no reason for HI to stop denying all CC License applications.
EEF should read this as this is logic that makes sense and how to post about it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2024, 10:13:18 PM
Cause u know whats up. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Wrong. v
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2024, 10:14:33 PM
Another bad example.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Don't care if you don't like the example, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2024, 10:17:27 PM
And not relevant as Bruen addresses this. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
How do you reason that?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2024, 11:01:46 PM
Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?
Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.
The HSC ruled on the Hawaii constitution, not on the second amendment. I already pointed this out. Even the section you quoted pointed it out to you. "We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public."
The HSC has the legal right to interpret the same exact words in the Hawaii constitution differently than does SCOTUS of the US constitution.
Quote
The state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case. If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else. Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits. You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.
Go read my posts again, I already called it weak. However weak doesn't mean it is not a thing. Not sure if you were on the forums long enough but at one point HIFICO (IIRC) was trying to get everyone to apply for CCW and save their denial letters. Part of the reason for that is to show standing, to show that people were actually being denied, not just denied in theory. You don't have to like standing but it is very much a solid aspect of law.
Quote
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?
And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:
Quote
That's another bogus argument. Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his. More circular reasoning. You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules. Name another right that works like that. If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too? Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?
You are getting into a whole class of law here. Dealing drugs while possessing a firearm is another example. Those are serious and fair questions but there are instances where other rights are restricted once someone is charged with a crime. For example sometimes courts will allow a charged person to be denied bail. It is not only the 2nd amendment that becomes revoked or restricted in some situations.
Quote
At least the HSC got that right, saying:Score one for good judgement.
Agreed.
Quote
To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text? Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.
What you are touching on is the right of the people vs the right of the individual. Some amendments mention people while at least one mentions the right of the individual. Some people interpret the "right of the people" to mean group rights rather than individual rights. I tend to be of the mindset that constitutional rights apply to individuals not just groups but I must admit I am not well versed in this issue.
Quote
And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:So, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?
I thought that part was pretty stupid too.
I applaud your lengthy and reasoned response. I agree with much of your reasoning but I don't arrive at all the same opinion you do. Problem is that you make the non sequitur that if I don't arrive at your opinion I must not have read the decision. Smart people can disagree on things just fine, the issue is when you let your emotions in and you have to resort to insults. Maybe you should be more inspired by the spirit of Aloha.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 28, 2024, 11:45:23 PM
The HSC ruled on the Hawaii constitution, not on the second amendment.
......
Maybe you should have paid closer attention in English classes. Aloha spirit is no substitute for knowledge and wisdom.
Many of your "disagreements" with me also disagreed with the HSC rulings. i have no desire to repeat the same things hoping you finally get it.
One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
You;
We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?
Where did i say anything close to what you are asking? The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:
Quote
Me:Here's what the HSC said:
Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor. Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot. The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
Quote
Here, the State charges place to keep crimes. Because
Wilson faces serious consequences, he has a claim of specific
present objective harm. And this gives him standing to
challenge the constitutionality of HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27.
See Armitage, 132 Hawaiʻi at 55, 319 P.3d at 1063 (defendants
subject to penal liability under a regulation have “a claim of
specific present objective harm,” and therefore standing to
challenge the constitutionality of that regulation) (citation
omitted).
Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing. :wtf:
Why can't you just read the document yourself?
I'm done. This pig is never going to be ready for the talent show.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 29, 2024, 07:58:12 AM
Don't care if you don't like the example, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point.
Because when people give examples, they can make anykine right? Instead of admitting the example was bad, here we go....Thanks for paying.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 29, 2024, 07:58:30 AM
How do you reason that?
Read Bruen again.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 29, 2024, 08:00:09 AM
Maybe you should have paid closer attention in English classes. Aloha spirit is no substitute for knowledge and wisdom.
Many of your "disagreements" with me also disagreed with the HSC rulings. i have no desire to repeat the same things hoping you finally get it.
One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
You;
We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?
Where did i say anything close to what you are asking? The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:Here's what the HSC said:
Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing. :wtf:
Why can't you just read the document yourself?
I'm done. This pig is never going to be ready for the talent show.
Apparently, he did read it. He just doesn't like to admit he is WRONG again. So instead he uses other tactics to try to shift things. But we all see thru it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2024, 10:32:21 PM
Repeating your opinion doesn't make it more convincing.
One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.
Quote
Where did i say anything close to what you are asking? The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:Here's what the HSC said:
Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing. :wtf:
I am trying to explain it to you. The HSC said Wilson had no standing to challenge the CCW law because he had not applied for one. I never denied he had standing to challenge the place to keep laws. By saying that Wilson didn't have standing to challenge the CCW law this allowed the HSC to avoid the question of whether Hawaii's CCW law was constitutional. He had standing to challenge place to keep pistol and place to keep ammo, not for being denied a CCW. If Wilson had a CCW then he would have had a defense to the place to keep law. If he had applied but been denied a CCW unconstitutionally then he would have had standing because he could argue his CCW rights were denied unconstitutionally which therefore denied him of the legal defense to place to keep.
Quote
Why can't you just read the document yourself?
Already did, that's why I am disagreeing with you. You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.
Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2024, 10:32:49 PM
Read Bruen again.
You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2024, 10:38:08 PM
Because when people give examples, they can make anykine right? Instead of admitting the example was bad, here we go....Thanks for paying.
Like I said, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point. Nitpicking my example isn't a rebuttal to my point. Abandon all examples then so you can be happy, explaining facts to you about the HSC decision is not the same thing as agreeing with their decision. Don't need an example, your point was a non sequitur.
Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 04, 2024, 09:17:59 AM
You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.
Yes for this Bruen document. Thanks for trying to wiggle out of this again.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 04, 2024, 09:19:34 AM
Like I said, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point. Nitpicking my example isn't a rebuttal to my point. Abandon all examples then so you can be happy, explaining facts to you about the HSC decision is not the same thing as agreeing with their decision. Don't need an example, your point was a non sequitur.
Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.
Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking.
I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC. Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 04, 2024, 09:25:12 AM
Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking.
I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC. Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.
Ever read the stories about Tar Baby or see the Disney Song of the South?
Arguing with EEF is like trying to fight a tar baby. Every time you get a handle on it, he comes up with another stupid argument he expects you to waste your time replying to.
ps: The movie and stories were deemed racist lately.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 04, 2024, 10:01:56 AM
Arguing with EEF is like trying to fight a tar baby. Every time you get a handle on it, he comes up with another stupid argument he expects you to waste your time replying to.
I spend just enough time replying so others who may not be on the same page think he's right. I want others to know he's wrong.
I stopped going into details because like you said, he will come up with a not relevant example so he feels like he's right, move goal post, and unnecessary long threads.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 07, 2024, 10:49:16 PM
Wow, now you're trying to use the reverse Uno card. Another bad example as I wasn't nitpicking.
I didn't say case law with regard to ALL US cases. I specifically said BRUEN and as it applies to HSC. Thanks for goal post moving to try to make it appear as you're not wrong.
And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 07, 2024, 10:50:43 PM
Yes for this Bruen document. Thanks for trying to wiggle out of this again.
So we don't need any legal experts, you are the legal expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 07, 2024, 11:06:40 PM
And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.
OMG! Are you serious?
What's the first part of the Bruen test?
If you can answer that, then explain how anything "pre-constitution" could possibly be considered in the second part.
Jeebus.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 08, 2024, 12:23:30 AM
OMG! Are you serious?
What's the first part of the Bruen test?
If you can answer that, then explain how anything "pre-constitution" could possibly be considered in the second part.
Jeebus.
Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.
From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.
Post by: macsak on March 08, 2024, 05:24:17 AM
Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.
From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.
Post by: randay on March 08, 2024, 06:30:20 AM
only 4???
wrong. Please show me where I said only 4. I said at least 4. stop goal post moving! thanks for playing.
Post by: macsak on March 08, 2024, 06:53:58 AM
wrong. Please show me where I said only 4. I said at least 4. stop goal post moving! thanks for playing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 08, 2024, 07:34:03 AM
And where exactly does the Bruen decision say that anything pre-constitution or common-law from England could not be made? Reading Bruen, it does mention common law became enshrined in the American constitution. It says delineates between using common law from the time of the framing vs common law from centuries before but I don't see anywhere that common law cannot be used.
Annnnnnd you conveniently missed that part....
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 08, 2024, 07:34:45 AM
So we don't need any legal experts, you are the legal expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?
No, just you're wrong on this topic. Thanks for trying to blanket that "all" legal experts and "everyone" is wrong. Thanks for playing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 08, 2024, 07:35:55 AM
Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.
From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.
You just answered your own question, but refuse to admit being wrong. Thanks for playing. Do you now work for the AG's office? Sure sounds like it.
Post by: ren on March 08, 2024, 07:36:02 AM
someone doesn't understand what "the Nation" means...
some people don't understand the simplest of things.....
(https://www.fire-support.co.uk/uploads/GD-AR-17.jpg)
Post by: macsak on March 08, 2024, 07:38:41 AM
(https://www.fire-support.co.uk/uploads/GD-AR-17.jpg)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 08, 2024, 09:04:26 AM
You just answered your own question, but refuse to admit being wrong. Thanks for playing. Do you now work for the AG's office? Sure sounds like it.
The goal post has always been the Bruen decision and how to apply it.
How can a case be covered under the text of the second amendment when it is from a foreign country and/or preceded the 2A?
The SCOTUS decision said foreign or prior period rules and regulations could be used to provide context, but the analogue itself has to be within the scope of US restrictions and only those that existed around the time the 2A was ratified.
I guess we know who the legal expert is not.
Quote
The Court held: "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's
conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that
conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is
consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may
a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's
"'unqualified command.'"
It's basically a paradoxical situation. You can't argue for a new law's constitutionality using a historical analogue that existed prior to the constitution -- or more specifically in this context the 2A. it's logically and rationally constrained by jurisdiction and timeframe. The fact that England may have passed a law in 1625 might be interesting, but it can't provide any historical tradition regarding US law post-constitution and post-2A.
For someone who lives and breathes 'nuance", he sure does like to argue over what was or was not explicitly stated.
"That fire is hot and can burn you."
"OUCH!!!"
"What did I just say?"
"You didn't explicitly say 'don't touch the fire."
Post by: Brystont1 on March 08, 2024, 09:25:07 AM
Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.
From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.
Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 08, 2024, 11:19:31 AM
The goal post has always been the Bruen decision and how to apply it.
How can a case be covered under the text of the second amendment when it is from a foreign country and/or preceded the 2A?
The SCOTUS decision said foreign or prior period rules and regulations could be used to provide context, but the analogue itself has to be within the scope of US restrictions and only those that existed around the time the 2A was ratified.
I guess we know who the legal expert is not.
It's basically a paradoxical situation. You can't argue for a new law's constitutionality using a historical analogue that existed prior to the constitution -- or more specifically in this context the 2A. it's logically and rationally constrained by jurisdiction and timeframe. The fact that England may have passed a law in 1625 might be interesting, but it can't provide any historical tradition regarding US law post-constitution and post-2A.
For someone who lives and breathes 'nuance", he sure does like to argue over what was or was not explicitly stated.
"That fire is hot and can burn you."
"OUCH!!!"
"What did I just say?"
"You didn't explicitly say 'don't touch the fire."
The anti 2A tried to use old English law about not being able to store over so many pounds of black powder. I forgot what CA lawsuit it was for. Not only was it moot, but the "context" was that they didn't want to see the London fires again. And because almost all homes were made from wood, this was a fire code law and not a gun law specifically.
1st Circuit upheld RI mag ban as the judges said that the plaintiff's failed to give evidence that they're used in self defense. So they too either don't understand Bruen or are corrupt. As the burden is on the government to show history/tradition and not on the plantiffs.
Post by: macsak on March 08, 2024, 12:05:09 PM
Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 08, 2024, 01:15:29 PM
Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.
You mean someone can communicate a thought without explicitly stating that thought in literal verbiage?
That's crazy! :crazy:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 10, 2024, 10:04:58 PM
Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.
Your opinion is noted.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 10, 2024, 10:07:12 PM
Annnnnnd you conveniently missed that part....
So you are backing out of supporting your argument? Surely if it is in there you could post it and make me eat my words but instead this is your response.
You guys tell me to go read the decisions but then get angry when they don't say what you say they say....
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 11, 2024, 08:08:13 AM
So you are backing out of supporting your argument? Surely if it is in there you could post it and make me eat my words but instead this is your response.
You guys tell me to go read the decisions but then get angry when they don't say what you say they say....
Why do you draw that conclusion of me backing out? Others and I already stated the correct information, you just refuse to admit you're wrong again and instead use other tactics to try to weasel your way out of an admission of being wrong.
We tell you to read it. You then still refuse to admit being wrong. Flapp post why you're still wrong, as I have less time to do so. You then move goal post or use other tactics to admit being wrong.
Even your statement of "you guys tell me to go read the decisions but then get angry when they don't say what you say they say..." is wrong. They decisions do say what we stated they say. YOU just refuse to admit it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 11, 2024, 12:08:38 PM
Why do you draw that conclusion of me backing out? Others and I already stated the correct information, you just refuse to admit you're wrong again and instead use other tactics to try to weasel your way out of an admission of being wrong.
We tell you to read it. You then still refuse to admit being wrong. Flapp post why you're still wrong, as I have less time to do so. You then move goal post or use other tactics to admit being wrong.
Even your statement of "you guys tell me to go read the decisions but then get angry when they don't say what you say they say..." is wrong. They decisions do say what we stated they say. YOU just refuse to admit it.
Anyone claiming others are "getting angry" online is trolling. It's a standard troll tactic. When the facts don't go your way, start tossing out bogus assertions to try and get an emotional reaction.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 11, 2024, 10:08:53 PM
Why do you draw that conclusion of me backing out? Others and I already stated the correct information, you just refuse to admit you're wrong again and instead use other tactics to try to weasel your way out of an admission of being wrong.
I am saying that you didn't, that you are refusing to admit you are wrong.
Quote
We tell you to read it. You then still refuse to admit being wrong.
More like I read it, inform you that you are wrong, and you still refuse to admit being wrong. :thumbsup:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 11, 2024, 10:09:57 PM
It's a standard troll tactic. When the facts don't go your way, start tossing out bogus assertions to try and get an emotional reaction.
Spoken like an experienced troll Mr. dermatologist.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 12, 2024, 07:23:53 AM
I am saying that you didn't, that you are refusing to admit you are wrong.
More like I read it, inform you that you are wrong, and you still refuse to admit being wrong. :thumbsup:
Annnnddd here's the blame shifting tactic. Thanks for playing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 12, 2024, 07:24:25 AM
Anyone claiming others are "getting angry" online is trolling. It's a standard troll tactic. When the facts don't go your way, start tossing out bogus assertions to try and get an emotional reaction.
Also, add in many other tactics due to lack of facts.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 12, 2024, 09:12:40 AM
Spoken like an experienced troll Mr. dermatologist.
LOL! You mad, Bro?
Just because i know more than you about skin problems (people in my family have had one or two), you try being derogatory as a way to recover your position?
When you can't attack the facts, attack the person. You're so transparent, Troll Boy.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 12, 2024, 11:15:20 AM
When you can't attack the facts, attack the person. You're so transparent, Troll Boy.
This tactic comes after moving goal post, blaming without cause, etc...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 19, 2024, 11:21:18 PM
LOL! You mad, Bro?
Just because i know more than you about skin problems (people in my family have had one or two), you try being derogatory as a way to recover your position?
When you can't attack the facts, attack the person. You're so transparent, Troll Boy.
Do I sound mad or is it that you need me to me to be mad to get your jollies? Sounds like you are upset I managed to troll the troll.
Your skin argument was idiotic anyway, arguing that psoriasis rarely occurs on the hands inherently means that it sometimes occurs on the hands, meaning my statement was right the whole time.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 19, 2024, 11:25:18 PM
Do I sound mad or is it that you need me to me to be mad to get your jollies? Sounds like you are upset I managed to troll the troll.
Your skin argument was idiotic anyway, arguing that psoriasis rarely occurs on the hands inherently means that it sometimes occurs on the hands, meaning my statement was right the whole time.
Rare = highly unlikely
That means you are taking guesses that are outside the realm of what's probable.
Try again.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 19, 2024, 11:32:23 PM
Rare = highly unlikely
That means you are taking guesses that are outside the realm of what's probable.
Try again.
Wrong.
Rare, highly unlikely, or whatever other synonym you want to insert still means it happens sometimes. Thus my point is true.
Are you mad bro?