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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.