that's what she said...

Damn you are fast,

that's what she said...

Y'all note I'd like to have a beer with you,
My chances of going to Oahu other than
Trippler medical center are about zero these days.
 

 

Y'all note I'd like to have a beer with you,
My chances of going to Oahu other than
Trippler medical center are about zero these days.
 

This is on the SCOTUS docket to see if they want to take up this case or not.

Interesting is that the same public defender would represent him if this does go to SCOTUS.

This is on the SCOTUS docket to see if they want to take up this case or not.

Interesting is that the same public defender would represent him if this does go to SCOTUS.

Public defender represented Rahimi in the current the SCOTUS appeal on domestic violence.  They're getting support from the 2a orgs in the background.

Unlikely they'll have the four votes to pick it up as I don't think they're ready for national constitutional carry at this time.

D) In 1810, Kind Kamehameha banned the splintered paddle   weapon in name of public safety (public safety arugement is being used)

I need to quibble on this, or request further education on the context. 

First, I think it was declared in 1797? The court's appeal says that Kamehameha united the islands in 1810... But it seems he had declared the law earlier in his career.


Second, the law DID NOT BAN splintered paddles or other weapons, at least not textually. He issued a decree that said "death to anybody who attacks anybody else who is laying around near a road". The (utterly insane) logic behind the court's appeal is that since this law protected everybody, nobody needed to carry weapons anymore. As if they believe nobody was murdered or assaulted while this law was in effect? The law said "you shouldn't need to carry weapons any more", not "you can't carry weapons any more".

And are we supposed to believe that murder and thievery was "legal" in Hawaii prior to the law being enacted in 1797 or 1810? Well... It was apparently only sometimes okay when the nobility, the "great" men like Kamehameha, were doing it. Kamehameha's decree, as explained in the "cultural context" section of the above link, was to distance himself from his own history of being a murderous thief... And in making his decree, he exonerated men who had used weapons in self-defense.

The whole story is the clearest example imaginable of why people need to carry weapons in self-defense, and the law didn't say otherwise. I can't fathom the contortionist logic required for the law to be cited as a basis for disarmament of citizens.

Kamehameha's decree, as explained in the "cultural context" section of the above link, was to distance himself from his own history of being a murderous thief... And in making his decree, he exonerated men who had used weapons in self-defense.

Sounds similar to the story behind the Nobel Peace Prize

I need to quibble on this, or request further education on the context. 

First, I think it was declared in 1797? The court's appeal says that Kamehameha united the islands in 1810... But it seems he had declared the law earlier in his career.


Second, the law DID NOT BAN splintered paddles or other weapons, at least not textually. He issued a decree that said "death to anybody who attacks anybody else who is laying around near a road". The (utterly insane) logic behind the court's appeal is that since this law protected everybody, nobody needed to carry weapons anymore. As if they believe nobody was murdered or assaulted while this law was in effect? The law said "you shouldn't need to carry weapons any more", not "you can't carry weapons any more".

And are we supposed to believe that murder and thievery was "legal" in Hawaii prior to the law being enacted in 1797 or 1810? Well... It was apparently only sometimes okay when the nobility, the "great" men like Kamehameha, were doing it. Kamehameha's decree, as explained in the "cultural context" section of the above link, was to distance himself from his own history of being a murderous thief... And in making his decree, he exonerated men who had used weapons in self-defense.

The whole story is the clearest example imaginable of why people need to carry weapons in self-defense, and the law didn't say otherwise. I can't fathom the contortionist logic required for the law to be cited as a basis for disarmament of citizens.

Another thing to remember is that HI wasn't a state when this was implemented.  The equivalent would be to use laws in England to ban guns in the history/tradition period. Neither matter, any law has to be US law. 

"The U.S. Supreme Court has requested a response from the State of Hawaii in State v. Wilson which is the case where the Hawaii Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is not in line with the Spirit of Aloha"

lul

"The U.S. Supreme Court has requested a response from the State of Hawaii in State v. Wilson which is the case where the Hawaii Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is not in line with the Spirit of Aloha"

Scotus is not taking up this case.  Spirit of Aloha stands.  Tho not for Wilson.


U.S. Supreme Court avoids Hawaii legal fight over gun rights.


The U.S. Supreme Court rejected today a Hawaii man’s bid to throw out criminal charges for carrying a pistol while hiking, as the justices declined to review a ruling by the liberal-leaning state’s top court that denounced an expansion of gun rights by the nation’s highest judicial body.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/12/09/breaking-news/u-s-supreme-court-avoids-hawaii-legal-fight-over-gun-rights/

Scotus is not taking up this case.  Spirit of Aloha stands.  Tho not for Wilson.


U.S. Supreme Court avoids Hawaii legal fight over gun rights.


The U.S. Supreme Court rejected today a Hawaii man’s bid to throw out criminal charges for carrying a pistol while hiking, as the justices declined to review a ruling by the liberal-leaning state’s top court that denounced an expansion of gun rights by the nation’s highest judicial body.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/12/09/breaking-news/u-s-supreme-court-avoids-hawaii-legal-fight-over-gun-rights/

So I guess, aside from Thomas and Alito, the rest of the SCOTUS judges didn't feel that the Hawaii Supreme Court "Failed to give the 2nd Amendment it's due regard".

What's with these SCOTUS judges?  Are they retarded or something?

So I guess, aside from Thomas and Alito, the rest of the SCOTUS judges didn't feel that the Hawaii Supreme Court "Failed to give the 2nd Amendment it's due regard".

What's with these SCOTUS judges?  Are they retarded or something?

They can only take so many cases in a year so unfortunately things fall through even if there is merit to it.  I've seen in the internets that SCOTUS docket in 2a cases is almost full for the year and is denying 2a cases because they want the awb as their last 2a case next year.

three judges said they want to review the case after it is finished...

SCOTUS not hearing this case makes me wonder ... how do you judge the workload of the SCOTUS?  I'd think that they would be the last ones to not be working hard enough.  But maybe this is a basis for Trump to add more judges to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS not hearing this case makes me wonder ... how do you judge the workload of the SCOTUS?  I'd think that they would be the last ones to not be working hard enough.  But maybe this is a basis for Trump to add more judges to the SCOTUS.

The 2A is the only major right that is openly violated by lawmakers so often.  They should take more 2A cases.  Or there should be penalties for violating Bruen as Bruen is supposed to end most gun laws.

SCOTUS not hearing this case makes me wonder ... how do you judge the workload of the SCOTUS?  I'd think that they would be the last ones to not be working hard enough.  But maybe this is a basis for Trump to add more judges to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS accepts about 100 out of the approx 7,000 requests it gets in a year.  And that 100 is split amongst everything...religion, speech, searches, executions, environmental, IRS, Presidential powers, student loans, permitting, immigration, transportation, fishing, etc.

The 2A is the only major right that is openly violated by lawmakers so often.  They should take more 2A cases.  Or there should be penalties for violating Bruen as Bruen is supposed to end most gun laws.

There are many laws on the federal books that protect special classes from constitutional violations.  Equal employment, election interference, kidnapping, ... you don't have to go to court and sue over your constitutional rights because there are criminal statutes that protect you in those cases.

Show me a statute that protects a gun owner when constitutional violations occur.  Self defense statutes vary from state to state, but I'm talking at the federal level.  For example, if the cops confiscate your legally owned firearm and refuse to give it back, there's no law broken.  You can't even file a stolen property report for all the good it'll do.  You have to sue in civil court.

Same thing for first amendment violations.  If a cop interferes with your right to record video in public, all you can do is sue the department and the officer/s in civil court.

We really should have specific laws for specific constitutional violations so all these cases don't have to wait to see if, not when, the Supreme Court ever agrees to hear it.  The sheer cost of presenting a Supreme Court case is outrageous.  The lawyer fees alone can range as high as $100,000 per case or much higher.  Here's a list of costs which will vary case to case:

https://thecourtdirect.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-file-with-the-us-supreme-court/

Given the high cost and length of time involved, not to mention the time and money spent at other levels of judicial review before reaching SCOTUS, it surprises me how many cases ever get to the point of applying for a Supreme Court hearing.

There are many laws on the federal books that protect special classes from constitutional violations.  Equal employment, election interference, kidnapping, ... you don't have to go to court and sue over your constitutional rights because there are criminal statutes that protect you in those cases.

Show me a statute that protects a gun owner when constitutional violations occur.  Self defense statutes vary from state to state, but I'm talking at the federal level.  For example, if the cops confiscate your legally owned firearm and refuse to give it back, there's no law broken.  You can't even file a stolen property report for all the good it'll do.  You have to sue in civil court.

Same thing for first amendment violations.  If a cop interferes with your right to record video in public, all you can do is sue the department and the officer/s in civil court.

We really should have specific laws for specific constitutional violations so all these cases don't have to wait to see if, not when, the Supreme Court ever agrees to hear it.  The sheer cost of presenting a Supreme Court case is outrageous.  The lawyer fees alone can range as high as $100,000 per case or much higher.  Here's a list of costs which will vary case to case:

https://thecourtdirect.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-file-with-the-us-supreme-court/

Given the high cost and length of time involved, not to mention the time and money spent at other levels of judicial review before reaching SCOTUS, it surprises me how many cases ever get to the point of applying for a Supreme Court hearing.

THis is why the government goes unchecked.  Most cannot afford a lawyer to get it to that level. The government knows this, and won't admit it's 1 tactic they use to pass unconstitutional laws.  F-U, sue us.

WIlson is using a public defender. I wonder how much approval he had to get to present it as far as it got.