I think they would certainly disagree that they have broken any oaths. There are different schools of thought on exactly what the 2nd amendment means. If they are applying it as they think it means then they aren't breaking any oaths. It just so happens that their interpretation is wrong in my opinion, but that doesn't make them oath breakers.
Sure. They ALL "support the Second Amendment, but...". See this example from a Washington state legislator just last week when stating his support for a bumpstock ban bill: "Democratic Sen. Kevin Van de Wege, the sponsor of the bump stock bill, noted that he’s
a lifetime member of the NRA and a defender of the 2nd Amendment [Of course he is!!],
but said
“this is something that shouldn’t be allowed.” [Of course it shouldn't!!]
From the
Heller SCOTUS decision (written by Scalia):
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”... When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to
carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute,
Justice Ginsburg wrote that “(s)urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate(s): ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).
From the Hawaii state constitution:
Article I
RIGHT TO
BEAR ARMS
Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
From the United States Constitution:
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus, by both the Hawaii state
and Federal constitutions, which all Hawaii legislators and elected officials (governor, etc.), and some unelected/appointed officials (police chiefs, AG, etc.) have sworn an oath to uphold and defend both constitutions, neither the federal nor state (via
McDonald extending
Heller's protections against the states' infringement) governments may infringe on the pre-existing right to self-defense via ‘wear[ing], bear[ing], or carry[ing] … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person’, independent of location (inside or outside the home).
Since almost none of the Hawaii legislators have taken measures to oppose the existing Hawaii statutory scheme which de facto denies every single citizen of the state the right to lawfully ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person', nor have they taken measures to overturn said de facto ban by introducing and supporting legislation to allow for the uninfringed exercise of said right, nor have they advocated for nor passed any resolutions to impeach the governor and AG nor demand that they remedy the situation, nor have they asked or demanded that county police chiefs change their de facto no issue policies, nor will they even answer the question "What does your sworn oath to uphold the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person' mean, anyway?, I thus hold them as oathbreakers.