DId you read the brief?

Not yet. Did you?

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

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.

Kinda sounds like some other judges I know

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.

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.

The challenge made its way to the Supreme Court, which, in a 5-4 decision
authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the Second Amendment
provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxnxaqbvx/02082024hawaii.pdf

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.

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.

So, unless everyone else reads all 53 pages, you aren't motivated to read them either? 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Not yet. Did you?

useful useless idiot (useful ones can at least read)

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.

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?

useful useless idiot (useful ones can at least read)

I went and read it. Did you?