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.

The Bruen test specifically  mentions this practice?

Read it.

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.

Bad example. Thanks for playing. Keep the long thread going again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

At least he is approaching it from the proper way to do it.

Wrong

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Hahahhahhaha cherry picking.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Hahahhahaha

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

range too far...Why is sky blue?

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?

Seems like the HSC wants to please the DNC which is in cahoots with the CCP.

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.

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!

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!

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.

The HISC didn't discuss exactly what militia they were referring to.  The gun control argument is the US 2A protects the state's right to have a militia/national guard from being disarmed by the Federal government.  For Hawaii's RTKBA, what lower level militia is being protected from being disarmed by the State?  The Honolulu militia?  Or does it mean the State of Hawaii cannot disarm their own militia/national guard that it controls which would be very odd?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Hahahahha

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.

Yes it is a rebuttle. Figure out why i stated this

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk