I have 10 hens. I sometimes use eggs for target practice.

There were a lot of people pecking up eggs last night. The sight of empty shelves sent me scrambling to walmart. I have to mention that costco has cuter chick's though.

There were a lot of people pecking up eggs last night. The sight of empty shelves sent me scrambling to walmart. I have to mention that costco has cuter chick's though.

Cute is one thing, but do they lay?

 

Everywhere you go, you're bound to find chickens.  I never thought I would find chickens roaming freely near my house in Mililani but.........

I should try look for their eggs.

Everywhere you go, you're bound to find chickens.  I never thought I would find chickens roaming freely near my house in Mililani but.........

I should try look for their eggs.

KHSC has chickens. But range too far.

Everywhere you go, you're bound to find chickens.  I never thought I would find chickens roaming freely near my house in Mililani but.........

I should try look for their eggs.

Yeah, there's been a poultry population explosion in Mililani lately.  The roosters are getting on my nerves crowing from midnight until after dawn.

My daughter now lives in Wahiawa and they built a small coop.  They now get more eggs than they can use.

Hope they can keep up with the "fertilizer production!"   

Yeah, there's been a poultry population explosion in Mililani lately.  The roosters are getting on my nerves crowing from midnight until after dawn.

My daughter now lives in Wahiawa and they built a small coop.  They now get more eggs than they can use.

Hope they can keep up with the "fertilizer production!"   

Egg prices are crazy nowadays.  When we were young we kept chickens and we always had eggs.  My favorite chickens were the red hens.  As big as they were they were a bit more laid back than the white ones.  My uncle was a tried and true fighting chicken guy that goes to the chicken fights and either comes back with a live cock and money or a dead one that we would eat, lol!

I used to dread trying to feed those fighting cocks.  They scared the hell out of me.

KHSC has chickens. But range too far.

Why is the range too far? Was there a study? straw man....

Egg prices are crazy nowadays.  When we were young we kept chickens and we always had eggs.  My favorite chickens were the red hens.  As big as they were they were a bit more laid back than the white ones.  My uncle was a tried and true fighting chicken guy that goes to the chicken fights and either comes back with a live cock and money or a dead one that we would eat, lol!

I used to dread trying to feed those fighting cocks.  They scared the hell out of me.

...
After I left costco, I went to Walmart to see if they had eggs. They had a lot but the prices were about 30% higher than last month. I figured something like this might happen when Petersons farm shut down. That fire at the chicken farm in Texas a few weeks ago doesn't help.

I blame "forcible sodomy". 

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.

I didn't invent the practice, I am only pointing out to you that it exists.

I didn't invent the practice, I am only pointing out to you that it exists.

Not with bruen.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is not allowed in the  Bruen test.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The Bruen test specifically  mentions this practice?

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

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.

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.

How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?

Darryl Perry, recently retired police chief of Kauai, talks about why repealing 2A is the right thing to do

More tyranny hiding under a word salad of caring and kindness

https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/sanctity-of-life-and-the-second-amendment/

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

How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?

Bruen did not “allow” states to have regulations on firearm carry. They merely stated that this ruling defines the word “bear” and they struck down “may issue” licensing laws. They said states “may” have regulations meaning that this ruling did not cover “constitutional carry” and that they should use the guidelines in Bruen to determine if regulations are “consistent with our nations history and tradition”.

Hawaii history is not US history.

How specifically did they defy the Buren ruling? Their reasoning picked a fight with Bruen but what in their actual decision do you feel defied Bruen? As I pointed out they stayed in the lane that Bruen gave with states being allowed to have regulations on firearm carry, so what part do you feel they defied?

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:

- 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.

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".

Bruen did not “allow” states to have regulations on firearm carry. They merely stated that this ruling defines the word “bear” and they struck down “may issue” licensing laws. They said states “may” have regulations meaning that this ruling did not cover “constitutional carry” and that they should use the guidelines in Bruen to determine if regulations are “consistent with our nations history and tradition”.

Hawaii history is not US history.

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.

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".

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.