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.

Hawaiian history is now US history?

Could you use a Canadian law from the 1780s to justify a proposed US law?

We use some British legal history because we were founded as a British colony.  Where a US law has a foundation in British law, it's proper to use those origins when analyzing their application today.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not expect that we should base our gun laws on the historical analogues of other countries.  If they did, we might as well through the Second Amendment in the toilet.

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.

Why are you bringing up British common law over and over?

The Bruen case was about the Second Amendment under the US Constitution. 

Any arguments arising from laws before 1776 are not relevant to this discussion.

Unless British common law had jurisdiction over the United States after the Second Amendment was ratified, your posts have no meaning.

The pandect of the United States of America is the U.S. Constitution. Period. Chymify Article 6; Clause 2. End of argument.

End of argument.

lul, good luck with that. we got at least 4 more pages of "NO, You!" coming.

only 4???

lul, good luck with that. we got at least 4 more pages of "NO, You!" coming.

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.

They reached back so they could figure out what the founders where trying to protect when they wrote the 2A. That analysis has ALREADY been done no need to go back there which is why they stated in Bruen “historical analogues” in our nations history and tradition, not historical analogues in world history. Again common sense tells you that you can’t reach back into a time where self defense laws regarding “arms” were non existent.

They reached back so they could figure out what the founders where trying to protect when they wrote the 2A. That analysis has ALREADY been done no need to go back there which is why they stated in Bruen “historical analogues” in our nations history and tradition, not historical analogues in world history. Again common sense tells you that you can’t reach back into a time where self defense laws regarding “arms” were non existent.

Actually, the Second Amendment, along with much of the Bill of Rights, were based at least in part on British laws.

The Declaration of Right was enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689,
which received royal assent in December 1689.[19]

The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that:[20]

- the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with (i.e. ignoring) laws
   by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
- the commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal; levying taxes without grant of
   Parliament is illegal;
- it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and prosecutions for such petitioning
   are illegal;
- keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is
   against law;
- Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions
   and as allowed by law;
- election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
- the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached
   or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
- excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
   punishments inflicted;
- jurors in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
- promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void;
- for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws,
   Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

The Bill of Rights directly influenced the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights,[29][nb 3]
which in turn influenced the Declaration of Independence.[30]

Although not a comprehensive statement of civil and political liberties, the Bill of Rights
stands as one of the landmark documents in the development of civil liberties in the United
Kingdom and a model for later, more general, statements of rights;[31][18][26] these include
the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on
Human Rights.[32][33] For example, as with the Bill of Rights 1689, the US Constitution
prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual punishment". Similarly, "cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment" is banned under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

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.

This is not allowed in the  Bruen test.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Not allowed in the Bruen test.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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

Annnndddd goal post moving. Here we go with another long thread.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Wwrroonnngggg. See my 2 post abt Bruen test.

Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why are you bringing up British common law over and over?

The Bruen case was about the Second Amendment under the US Constitution. 

Any arguments arising from laws before 1776 are not relevant to this discussion.

Unless British common law had jurisdiction over the United States after the Second Amendment was ratified, your posts have no meaning.

Because he wont admit he is wrong. Goal post moving has begun also.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Annnndddd goal post moving. Here we go with another long thread.

EEF:  The HSC stating that Bruen is wrong is not the same thing as defying them

While his comment is technically correct, it's factually inaccurate.

The HSC did both:  disagreed and stated they do not recognize the SCOTUS rulings as anything more than informative.  They see no requirement for any state to obey SCOTUS rulings.

In other words, they are defying the Bruen ruling  BECAUSE they disagree with it.

In other words, they are defying the Bruen ruling  BECAUSE they disagree with it.

Great.  Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with.  The HISC just set the precedent.

Great.  Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with.  The HISC just set the precedent.

That's what our criminal elites don't understand. They are leading by example and it completely undermines their own authority. Unless they plan to back it up with brute force then large parts of the state will become ungovernable.

Actually, the Second Amendment, along with much of the Bill of Rights, were based at least in part on British laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Right that’s why the SCOTUS partly used English common law to determine if the 2A was an individual right. I don’t know of any “arms” laws during the Hawaiian kingdom era which is what I was referring to in the sentence you highlighted

Great.  Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with.  The HISC just set the precedent.

"No need follow any HI law you disagree with."
When it comes to most Hawaii gun laws I like that idea.
Most all other Hawaii laws should be followed, regardless
of whether you like them or not.
Keep in mind I said "Most".
 

Great.  Ok everybody. No need follow any HI law you disagree with.  The HISC just set the precedent.

My take on it is this.

Hawaii just said there's no relationship between the laws created by Congress or the Constitution and the interpretations made by SCOTUS.

Hawaii is pretending that by making a ruling HI doesn't agree with, the state is under no obligation to follow it since SCOTUS can't make new law.  Bruen is "new law" in HI's view,  just because the official interpretation has been clarified.

Unless the DOJ goes after HI government leaders for failing to follow the Constitution, there's not much anyone can do short of a slew of costly and time-wasting lawsuits. 

And we all know the DOJ is the lap dog of the Democrats in power.

The HISC is being very myopic and childish. If one perlustrates the logic of the HISC’s prepense albeit a unanimous 5-0 ruling on HI v. Wilson, which blatantly defies the rulings of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen by SCOTUS (SCOTUS being the highest court in the USA), then following this logic, Hawaii’s residents should like wise be free to overlook laws with which they can make a cogent germane argument against the law telling the State of Hawaii why it is not liked. Because this is exactly what the HISC is doing with this Wilson ruling.

Somebody got a new "Word of the Day" calendar for Christmas!