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...

Hahahhaha again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Read it again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

1.  The order:
    -  Cop:  "Move your car."

    -  SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases.  States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance.  SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.

2.  The action:
    -  Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.

    -  HSC:  Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.

3.  The result:
    -  Driver:  Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
       a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.

    -  HSC:  Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
       and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government). 
       Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.

Try again.

1.  The order:
    -  Cop:  "Move your car."

    -  SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases.  States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance.  SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.

2.  The action:
    -  Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.

    -  HSC:  Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.

3.  The result:
    -  Driver:  Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
       a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.

    -  HSC:  Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
       and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government). 
       Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.

Try again.

Exactlly. Bad examples again.


Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test, in CA alan beck won against their baton ban.

CA cited 13th century common England laws as part of their "history/tradition" and the judge said no can do.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Exactlly. Bad examples again.


Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test, in CA alan beck won against their baton ban.

CA cited 13th century common England laws as part of their "history/tradition" and the judge said no can do.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.

Either he's trying to protect his master (Cops work for the government), or he just wants to argue -- this time saying an obviously wrong argument will still satisfy the letter of the Bruen test.  i.e. "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."

It's not picking it apart when the argument is out of the timeframe and jurisdiction required under Bruen.

If your teacher tells you everyone must submit a project for the Science Fair, and you take a piece of ice from the lunchroom and say that's your project, i don't think you deserve any points for participating.

Same applies to arguments for historical analogues which do not satisfy even the most basic test requirements.  A stupid argument is not an argument.  It's a piece of ice you submitted because you didn't have a real argument to present.

I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.

Either he's trying to protect his master (Cops work for the government), or he just wants to argue -- this time saying an obviously wrong argument will still satisfy the letter of the Bruen test.  i.e. "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."

It's not picking it apart when the argument is out of the timeframe and jurisdiction required under Bruen.

If your teacher tells you everyone must submit a project for the Science Fair, and you take a piece of ice from the lunchroom and say that's your project, i don't think you deserve any points for participating.

Same applies to arguments for historical analogues which do not satisfy even the most basic test requirements.  A stupid argument is not an argument.  It's a piece of ice you submitted because you didn't have a real argument to present.

CA presented 250 examples of what they consider "history/tradition" and the judge shot it down in the Alan Beck baton lawsuit. All were wrong.

CAs expert also said 14 states had a billy club law. Only 7 did. The judge called them on their BS too.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I'm still trying to figure out why...

You're thoroughly distracted, right?

You're thoroughly distracted, right?

That would imply i spend more time thinking about it than i actually do ...

 

I'm just raising the question.  He has an agenda -- that's certain.

I could guess what that would be, but there's a very long list of options.  Most fall under the category Useful Idiot.

I'm just raising the question.  He has an agenda -- that's certain.

Maybe he one attorney and trying to get Green appoint him as judge.

nope
he 5-0...

Maybe he one attorney and trying to get Green appoint him as judge.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/another-state-races-to-become-constitutional-carry-state/ar-BB1iUjbV?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e75ac662279949549f981fc2aef92de3&ei=28


Yay, Louisiana!

Boo aloha spirit Hawaii..........

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/another-state-races-to-become-constitutional-carry-state/ar-BB1iUjbV?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e75ac662279949549f981fc2aef92de3&ei=28


Yay, Louisiana!

Boo aloha spirit Hawaii..........

States like HI, NY, CA will never have this.......but then again, I though HI would never issue CCW's either, so....

The way Hawaii enacts their stupid laws it wouldn't surprise me one bit that if forced to comply and institute constitutional carry, Hawaii would pass some kind of law restricting that the gun never leaves the holster.........

cause Aloha Spirit.  Only for show.

States like HI, NY, CA will never have this.......but then again, I though HI would never issue CCW's either, so....

Yeah.  It only took HI about 75 years to be MADE to issue permits -- made by the Supreme Court.

Can only imagine the time and force that will be needed to enact constitutional carry after seeing the hissy fit the state's throwing in the wake of Bruen.

I look at these violations of our federally protected rights, and I have to ask, "Where's this Aloha they speak of?"  Why does it only go one way?  Individuals carrying publicly somehow violates the spirit of Aloha (not a law), but violating all gun owners' individual rights under the US Constitution is totally acceptable?

 

Yeah.  It only took HI about 75 years to be MADE to issue permits -- made by the Supreme Court.

Can only imagine the time and force that will be needed to enact constitutional carry after seeing the hissy fit the state's throwing in the wake of Bruen.

I look at these violations of our federally protected rights, and I have to ask, "Where's this Aloha they speak of?"  Why does it only go one way?  Individuals carrying publicly somehow violates the spirit of Aloha (not a law), but violating all gun owners' individual rights under the US Constitution is totally acceptable?

 

Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI.  Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.

Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI.  Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.

Thank you, President Trump -- and his Supreme Court Justice picks!

Being new to the community compared to you guys, I though never in my lifetime would I see CCW in HI.  Maybe my childs lifetime, they might see it, but def not mine. Im in my 30's.

Similar could be said with the repeal of Roe v Wade, a self-described Socialist not only running for President, but nearly defeating HRC for the nomination, or a US President visiting North Korea.

Just a few of the many "not in my lifetime" moments we've see the last couple of decades.

I never thought I'd see men pretending to be women playing female sports and using women's restrooms while I'm forced to treat that as normal, a politician who failed to treat classified as anything close to classified be let off completely by the FBI and DOJ after they found enough evidence to convict of multiple counts, or Americans protesting in favor of a terrorist group who killed hundreds of innocent Israelis and non-israelis.

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

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nope.

1.  The order:
    -  Cop:  "Move your car."

    -  SCOTUS: States must review their anti-gun laws and recent cases.  States must reevaluate existing and new laws using the Bruen test for constitutional compliance.  SCOTUS reiterated previous SCOTUS rulings that firearm ownership IS an individual right not tied to organized militia membership, and that the right includes carrying firearms outside the home for self protection.

2.  The action:
    -  Driver: Moved car -- i.e. complied.

    -  HSC:  Made a ruling diametrically opposed to the SCOTUS precedents and Bruen test -- i.e. did not comply.

3.  The result:
    -  Driver:  Complied with the officer's order while also indicating his disagreement (finger) --
       a futile and immature sign of defiance while actually complying.

    -  HSC:  Decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for the state militia,
       and that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, but a collective one (i.e. a right that belongs to the government). 
       Plainly articulating that any SCOTUS rulings and precedents can be followed or lawfully kicked aside was HI's middle finger to SCOTUS.

Try again.

The red portion is where I would say you are inaccurately stating what the HSC said in their ruling.

I'm still trying to figure out why he's so adamant in his defense of the HI court's decision.

There is your problem, I am not defending the decision. I already criticized parts of it but I am just accurately explaining what it is. You can't see the difference between explaining and defending.

If I said Hitler ate babies and you said there is no evidence he did, would it be fair of me to say you were defending Hitler? No, of course not.