Oh and since EEF thinks prior non US laws apply to the 2a under Bruen test,

Strawman.
I didn't say that. I gave examples of times where courts cited non-US laws.

I said:
"Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument?"
You too are free to point out where Bruen decision, or any other SCOTUS decision says that pre-USA or pre-USA foreign laws/rulings cannot be used.

Nope.

Cause u know whats up. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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.

Another bad example.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Strawman.
I didn't say that. I gave examples of times where courts cited non-US laws.

I said:
"Are you saying this based on some factual understanding or are you just making an idealistic argument?"
You too are free to point out where Bruen decision, or any other SCOTUS decision says that pre-USA or pre-USA foreign laws/rulings cannot be used.

And not relevant as Bruen addresses this. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

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

Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?

Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.

Keep trying to redefine the word "defiance" all you want.  It won't change reality.

Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read
those words differently than the current United States Supreme
Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public.

HSC is stating they hold a contrary opinion from the SCOTUS rulings which affirmed the right to carry exists nationally -- of which HI is a part.  HI is saying there is no such right if they say so.

The State appeals an order dismissing two “place to keep”
offenses, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-25 (2011) (pistol
or revolver) and § 134-27 (2011) (ammunition) filed against
Christopher Wilson. Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit dismissed the charges.

Sounds like the HI circuit court agreed with the SCOTUS opinions and dismissed the charges.

The State challenges Wilson’s standing. The State says
Wilson did not bother to apply for a carry license and thereby
satisfy HRS § 134-9 (2011), Hawaiʻi’s license to carry law. So
he can’t bring a Bruen-based constitutional challenge to HRS
§ 134-25 and § 134-27.

The state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case.  If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else.  Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits.  You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.

The state argued using circular reasoning saying that since Wilson didn't avail himself of the state's unconstitutional process and apply for a license, then he can't argue that the law is unconstitutional.  How stupid is that?  The whole point of having a Bill of Rights is so you don't have to comply with laws that violate them -- especially not just so you can argue in court that you shouldn't have to follow those bad laws.

Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor.  Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot.  The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

Because the State charged Wilson with place to keep
offenses, we conclude that Wilson has standing to challenge the
constitutionality of those laws. A criminal defendant has
standing to level a constitutional attack against the charged.

And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:

We reject Wilson’s constitutional challenges. Conventional
interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of
firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear
arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. In Hawaiʻi, there is no
state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.
Bruen snubs federalism principles. Still, the United
States Supreme Court does not strip states of all sovereignty to
pass traditional police power laws designed to protect people.
Wilson has standing to challenge HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-
27(a). But those laws do not violate his federal constitutional
rights.

Basically, they decided that under HI law, there is no right similar to federal constitutional 2A rights.  Then they say HI laws don't violate federal constitutional rights.  That's bogus -- it's circular reasoning.  They are using their interpretation of state constitutional rights to defy Wilson's rights as defined under SCOTUS case law.

The circuit court denied Wilson’s motion to dismiss in July
2021. It relied on Young v. Hawaiʻi. There, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does not provide
a right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.

The court relied on a 9th Circus ruling saying that individuals in HI  have no right to carry OPENLY.  The facts show that Wilson was carrying CONCEALED.  Not sure the HCS panel ever took English comprehension in school.

The Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney (State)
countered.
First, the Second Amendment allows for some restrictions
per Heller and Bruen. For instance, registration and permitting
are constitutional. Second, unlike the Bruen plaintiffs, Wilson
illegally possessed a handgun because he never tried to follow
Hawaiʻi’s firearm registration and license to carry law. Because
he didn’t apply for a permit, he lacks standing to raise a
Second Amendment challenge.
Circuit Court Judge Kirstin Hamman granted Wilson’s second
motion to dismiss in August 2022. HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-
27(a) infringed Wilson’s constitutional right to keep and bear a
firearm for self-defense.

The circuit court judge AGREED WITH WILSON, that the law restricting firearms to one's home and other specific locales was unconstitutional.

One more time the lower HI court got it right as they AGREED with prior SCOTUS rulings and precedents.

The State had failed to meet its burden to show how HRS
§ 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) are “consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The circuit court
also found that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) made “no
exceptions for carrying firearms outside the home for selfdefense purposes.”
[There are exceptions in those laws -
“[e]xcept as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9.” This
mistake though is immaterial to our decision.]
The court dismissed counts 1 and 2 with prejudice.

Once a case is adjudicated with prejudice, it can never be charged again.

HSC then cites a NY ruling (go figure) to support the claim that

“Failing to seek a
license before roaming the streets with a loaded firearm is not
abiding by the law, and nothing in the Second Amendment requires
that it be tolerated.”

Again, you must first follow an unconstitutional law before you can argue that the law is unconstitutional.  That's Catch 22 material.  HSC specifically stated that's their reasoning:

Wilson says HRS § 134-9 “may be unconstitutional” and that
it is unreasonable to “[r]equire[] defendants to apply for
licenses pursuant [to] a potentially unconstitutional statute as
a prerequisite to challenging other statutes[.]” HRS § 134-9 is
unconstitutional, Wilson’s argument goes, so he should not have
to apply for a license to challenge the law.

We disagree. Wilson has no standing to challenge HRS
§ 134-9 without applying for a license.

Had Wilson followed the
HRS § 134-9 application process, and been denied, then he might
have standing to challenge that law’s constitutionality in his
criminal case.

This all happened in 2017.  The Bruen decision was in 2022.  So, even if Wilson had applied for a license to carry, we all know it would have been summarily denied.  End of story.  For the state to say he should have applied for one in order to avail himself of a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous on its face, particularly when the predictable result would have been no license being issued.

HSC then goes on to reiterate that they interpret HI's constitution differently than SCOTUS interprets the US Constitution.  The court misapplied the precedent they cited by siding with the plaintiff, when the ruling clearly says that if the state constitution gives the win to the defendant, then there's no need to argue about what the US Constitution says.

Thus, we interpret the Hawaiʻi Constitution first. And may
not get to the United States Constitution. See State v. Kono,
152 A.3d 1, 29 n.29 (Conn. 2016) (“If we address the state
constitutional claim first and decide it in favor of the
defendant, there is no reason to address the federal
constitutional claim; for purposes of that case, the defendant
is entitled to prevail under the state constitution, and it
simply does not matter which way the claim would have been
decided under the federal constitution.”); State v. Moylett, 836
P.2d 1329, 1332 (Or. 1992) (“if no state law, including the
state constitution, resolves the issues, courts then should turn
for assistance to the Constitution of the United States”).

Again -- English comprehension.

Then the HSC breaks into a long-winded and convoluted dissertation.  Part of the that is the state trying to argue:

The State argues Wilson’s handgun-toting conduct is not
saved by the right to bear arms. He trespassed, a crime. He’s
not “law abiding.” The State’s position makes sense in the
abstract. Neither Bruen, nor any case, protect a right to
commit a crime while armed.

They are saying that, if you are committing a crime (trespassing), then your right to carry under the US Constitution is no longer protected.

That's another bogus argument.  Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his.  More circular reasoning.  You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules.  Name another right that works like that.  If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too?  Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?

At least the HSC got that right, saying:

The State’s argument about Wilson’s alleged criminal
conduct does not apply. Wilson’s criminal trespass charge
(count 4) is not before this court. And it’s a trial matter.
The parties dispute the facts in declarations attached to their
motion to dismiss briefing. These declarations are fair game
for now. They comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule
47(a) (“If a motion requires the consideration of facts not
appearing of record, it shall be supported by affidavit or
declaration.”).
Wilson denies trespassing. Wilson says that he and his
friends “were hiking that night to look at the moon and Native
Hawaiian plants.” They did not see any “No Trespassing” signs.
For purposes of the motion to dismiss, Wilson’s alleged criminal
conduct does not prevent him from challenging the charges under
the Second Amendment and article I, section 17.

Score one for good judgement.

Then HSC went off the rails.  They cited a previous HI case in which the right to keep and bear arms for individuals did not exist in the state:

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.

Basically, because a judge ruled in 1993 what the state constitution section 17 means, all before Heller, Bruen and other cases decided in favor of the 2A right to carry, the HSC now defies the SCOTUS rulings under the belief that:

We believe that if article I, section 17 meant to provide
an individual right to carry deadly weapons in public for selfdefense, then it would say so.

Well, nowhere in the 1A does it say you have the right to publish protected speech on the Internet without government interference either, but that happens to be a fact.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but this reasoning is just mind-blowing.  Everyone who studies the Constitutions knows and understands that the Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate what your rights are, excluding anything that's not a right.  It states what specific rights AMONG ALL RIGHTS -- listed or not -- that the government must honor and how it must go about doing that (i.e. must not be infringed).  Looking at the other rights, they are in no way all inclusive either.  I bet the HSC still thinks abortion is a constitutional right.  Where is that written, exactly?

We conclude that the authors and ratifiers of the Hawaiʻi
Constitution imagined a collective right. Our understanding
aligns with what the Second Amendment meant in 1950 when Hawaiʻi
copied the federal constitution’s language. And in 1968 and
1978 when Hawaiʻi’s people kept those words.

To use their reasoning, if HI adopted the 2A wording from the US Constitution because they agreed with its meaning in 1950, then isn't that the state's mistake? 

To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text?  Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.

And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:

In Hawaiʻi, the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutional
interpretation. See Sunoco, 153 Hawaiʻi at 363, 537 P.3d at 1210
(Eddins, J., concurring). When this court exercises “power on
behalf of the people and in fulfillment of [our]
responsibilities, obligations, and service to the people” we
“may contemplate and reside with the life force and give
consideration to the ‘Aloha Spirit.’” HRS § 5-7.5(b) (2009).
The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated
lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons
during day-to-day activities.

So, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?

This belief is why HI is being roasted now.

If you can't see how this opinion defies the rulings handed down by the SCOTUS, then you're being willfully argumentative.  Nobody can help anyone who refuses to believe what's in front of their eyes.

Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?

Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.

Keep trying to redefine the word "defiance" all you want.  It won't change reality.
HSC is stating they hold a contrary opinion from the SCOTUS rulings which affirmed the right to carry exists nationally -- of which HI is a part.  HI is saying there is no such right if they say so.
Sounds like the HI circuit court agreed with the SCOTUS opinions and dismissed the charges.
The state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case.  If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else.  Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits.  You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.

The state argued using circular reasoning saying that since Wilson didn't avail himself of the state's unconstitutional process and apply for a license, then he can't argue that the law is unconstitutional.  How stupid is that?  The whole point of having a Bill of Rights is so you don't have to comply with laws that violate them -- especially not just so you can argue in court that you shouldn't have to follow those bad laws.

Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor.  Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot.  The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:

Basically, they decided that under HI law, there is no right similar to federal constitutional 2A rights.  Then they say HI laws don't violate federal constitutional rights.  That's bogus -- it's circular reasoning.  They are using their interpretation of state constitutional rights to defy Wilson's rights as defined under SCOTUS case law.
The court relied on a 9th Circus ruling saying that individuals in HI  have no right to carry OPENLY.  The facts show that Wilson was carrying CONCEALED.  Not sure the HCS panel ever took English comprehension in school.
The circuit court judge AGREED WITH WILSON, that the law restricting firearms to one's home and other specific locales was unconstitutional.

One more time the lower HI court got it right as they AGREED with prior SCOTUS rulings and precedents.
Once a case is adjudicated with prejudice, it can never be charged again.

HSC then cites a NY ruling (go figure) to support the claim that Again, you must first follow an unconstitutional law before you can argue that the law is unconstitutional.  That's Catch 22 material.  HSC specifically stated that's their reasoning:
This all happened in 2017.  The Bruen decision was in 2022.  So, even if Wilson had applied for a license to carry, we all know it would have been summarily denied.  End of story.  For the state to say he should have applied for one in order to avail himself of a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous on its face, particularly when the predictable result would have been no license being issued.

HSC then goes on to reiterate that they interpret HI's constitution differently than SCOTUS interprets the US Constitution.  The court misapplied the precedent they cited by siding with the plaintiff, when the ruling clearly says that if the state constitution gives the win to the defendant, then there's no need to argue about what the US Constitution says.Again -- English comprehension.

Then the HSC breaks into a long-winded and convoluted dissertation.  Part of the that is the state trying to argue:They are saying that, if you are committing a crime (trespassing), then your right to carry under the US Constitution is no longer protected.

That's another bogus argument.  Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his.  More circular reasoning.  You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules.  Name another right that works like that.  If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too?  Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?

At least the HSC got that right, saying:Score one for good judgement.

Then HSC went off the rails.  They cited a previous HI case in which the right to keep and bear arms for individuals did not exist in the state:Basically, because a judge ruled in 1993 what the state constitution section 17 means, all before Heller, Bruen and other cases decided in favor of the 2A right to carry, the HSC now defies the SCOTUS rulings under the belief that:Well, nowhere in the 1A does it say you have the right to publish protected speech on the Internet without government interference either, but that happens to be a fact.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but this reasoning is just mind-blowing.  Everyone who studies the Constitutions knows and understands that the Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate what your rights are, excluding anything that's not a right.  It states what specific rights AMONG ALL RIGHTS -- listed or not -- that the government must honor and how it must go about doing that (i.e. must not be infringed).  Looking at the other rights, they are in no way all inclusive either.  I bet the HSC still thinks abortion is a constitutional right.  Where is that written, exactly?
To use their reasoning, if HI adopted the 2A wording from the US Constitution because they agreed with its meaning in 1950, then isn't that the state's mistake? 

To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text?  Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.

And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:So, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?

This belief is why HI is being roasted now.

If you can't see how this opinion defies the rulings handed down by the SCOTUS, then you're being willfully argumentative.  Nobody can help anyone who refuses to believe what's in front of their eyes.

Thanks for taking the time. I stopped doing so becasue all he will do is argue more, move goal post, etc...Instead of admitting he's wrong and the threads being much shorter.

Thanks for taking the time. I stopped doing so becasue all he will do is argue more, move goal post, etc...Instead of admitting he's wrong and the threads being much shorter.

he only skimmed the document long enough to find a couple of arguments he thought supported his argumentative position.  In reality, if he bothered to read the whole decision, the things he brought up were arguments the state made, and all but one of those he posted were ruled against.  All those he brought up were ruled against by the circuit court.

I challenged him twice to actually read the decision, and he finally clicked the link.  Unfortunately, he only saw enough to make him look even less informed.

I was going back and re-reading some of these posts.  Something jumped out at me.

 

The HSC said that the SCOTUS is "another authority" that the state can either accept or deny the majority opinion in the court's decisions.  They go to great lengths to point out that carry in public is not an individual right under the Hawaii Constitution regardless of what SCOTUS says about the 2A under Bruen.

Rewind to 2022, and we see the HI government and police departments jumping through their buttholes to change the state's "may issue" CCW process to "shall issue."

If the HSC is correct, then why would the state make such an effort to start approving CC licenses while simultaneously looking for ways to make it harder and costlier for applicants?  After all, SCOTUS can't tell HI what to do if the state already made decisions that oppose the new rulings, right?

Sounds like this "state law takes precedence over the federal constitution" BS just appeared out of thin air in the Wilson case -- supported by a wrongly interpreted HI precedent.

If what HSC put out is true, then there was no reason for HI to stop denying all CC License applications.

I was going back and re-reading some of these posts.  Something jumped out at me.

 

The HSC said that the SCOTUS is "another authority" that the state can either accept or deny the majority opinion in the court's decisions.  They go to great lengths to point out that carry in public is not an individual right under the Hawaii Constitution regardless of what SCOTUS says about the 2A under Bruen.

Rewind to 2022, and we see the HI government and police departments jumping through their buttholes to change the state's "may issue" CCW process to "shall issue."

If the HSC is correct, then why would the state make such an effort to start approving CC licenses while simultaneously looking for ways to make it harder and costlier for applicants?  After all, SCOTUS can't tell HI what to do if the state already made decisions that oppose the new rulings, right?

Sounds like this "state law takes precedence over the federal constitution" BS just appeared out of thin air in the Wilson case -- supported by a wrongly interpreted HI precedent.

If what HSC put out is true, then there was no reason for HI to stop denying all CC License applications.

EEF should read this as this is logic that makes sense and how to post about it.

Cause u know whats up. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Wrong. v

Another bad example.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Don't care if you don't like the example, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point.

And not relevant as Bruen addresses this. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

How do you reason that?

Is it your belief that the HSC issued nothing more than an opinion even though it specifically said they disagree with the SCOTUS precedents without being in defiance of the SCOTUS precedents?

Courts only do opinions. If they hold an opinion contrary to SCOTUS' rulings, that the 2A applies to individuals (the people), they are defying the court's precedents, and any cases they rule on in the future will incorporate that contrary decision.

The HSC ruled on the Hawaii constitution, not on the second amendment. I already pointed this out. Even the section you quoted pointed it out to you. "We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public."

The HSC has the legal right to interpret the same exact words in the Hawaii constitution differently than does SCOTUS of the US constitution.

The state argued standing, which is what the state always does when they know they have a weak case.  If they can win that argument, then they don't have to do anything else.  Once standing is granted, the state then has to win on the merits.  You act like that was some legal fact, when it was just a tactic.

Go read my posts again, I already called it weak. However weak doesn't mean it is not a thing. Not sure if you were on the forums long enough but at one point HIFICO (IIRC) was trying to get everyone to apply for CCW and save their denial letters. Part of the reason for that is to show standing, to show that people were actually being denied, not just denied in theory. You don't have to like standing but it is very much a solid aspect of law.

The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?

And this is where the HSC said/stated/articulated that they are defying SCOTUS:

That's another bogus argument.  Until he's been arrested and found guilty of trespassing, the right was still his.  More circular reasoning.  You have a right, but that right is taken away if you break any other rules.  Name another right that works like that.  If you kill someone on camera and have no defense, do you then lose your 4th, 5th or 14th amendment rights, too?  Why is it only the second amendment is subject to revocation once you are accused of a crime?

You are getting into a whole class of law here. Dealing drugs while possessing a firearm is another example. Those are serious and fair questions but there are instances where other rights are restricted once someone is charged with a crime. For example sometimes courts will allow a charged person to be denied bail. It is not only the 2nd amendment that becomes revoked or restricted in some situations.

At least the HSC got that right, saying:Score one for good judgement.

Agreed.

To use the HSC's own reasoning, if the right were to be interpreted as a "collective right", would that not be explicitly worded in the 2A text?  Instead, it clearly states that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not the right of the militia or the collective right of the state.

What you are touching on is the right of the people vs the right of the individual. Some amendments mention people while at least one mentions the right of the individual. Some people interpret the "right of the people" to mean group rights rather than individual rights. I tend to be of the mindset that constitutional rights apply to individuals not just groups but I must admit I am not well versed in this issue.

And if you didn't already question the sanity and rationality of the HSC, this would be the clincher:So, "lifestyle", which we know varies from place to place and person to person, is now the foundation for what is a protected right and what is not?

I thought that part was pretty stupid too.


I applaud your lengthy and reasoned response. I agree with much of your reasoning but I don't arrive at all the same opinion you do. Problem is that you make the non sequitur that if I don't arrive at your opinion I must not have read the decision. Smart people can disagree on things just fine, the issue is when you let your emotions in and you have to resort to insults. Maybe you should be more inspired by the spirit of Aloha.

The HSC ruled on the Hawaii constitution, not on the second amendment.

......

Maybe you should have paid closer attention in English classes.  Aloha spirit is no substitute for knowledge and wisdom.

Many of your "disagreements" with me also disagreed with the HSC rulings.  i have no desire to repeat the same things hoping you finally get it.

One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

You;
We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?
 
Where did i say anything close to what you are asking?  The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:

Me:
Given that standing was a bogus argument, the HSC had no choice but to decide in Wilson's favor.  Your continued use of standing as somehow a relevant part of this discussion is moot.  The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

Here's what the HSC said:

Here, the State charges place to keep crimes. Because
Wilson faces serious consequences, he has a claim of specific
present objective harm. And this gives him standing to
challenge the constitutionality of HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27.
See Armitage, 132 Hawaiʻi at 55, 319 P.3d at 1063 (defendants
subject to penal liability under a regulation have “a claim of
specific present objective harm,” and therefore standing to
challenge the constitutionality of that regulation) (citation
omitted).

Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing.   

Why can't you just read the document yourself?

I'm done.  This pig is never going to be ready for the talent show.

Don't care if you don't like the example, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point.

Because when people give examples, they can make anykine right? Instead of admitting the example was bad, here we go....Thanks for paying.

How do you reason that?

Read Bruen again.

Maybe you should have paid closer attention in English classes.  Aloha spirit is no substitute for knowledge and wisdom.

Many of your "disagreements" with me also disagreed with the HSC rulings.  i have no desire to repeat the same things hoping you finally get it.

One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

You;
We disagree. Yes, Wilson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of place to keep laws but Bruen doesn't say that place to keep type laws are unconstitutional. If Bruen did say that then they would have effectively created constitutional carry. Are you arguing that the Bruen ruling means there is constitutional carry?
 
Where did i say anything close to what you are asking?  The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:Here's what the HSC said:
Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing.   

Why can't you just read the document yourself?

I'm done.  This pig is never going to be ready for the talent show.

Apparently, he did read it.  He just doesn't like to admit he is WRONG again. So instead he uses other tactics to try to shift things. But we all see thru it.

Many of your "disagreements" with me also disagreed with the HSC rulings.  i have no desire to repeat the same things hoping you finally get it.[/quote]

Repeating your opinion doesn't make it more convincing. 

One example is your comment:
Quote from me;
The state gave Wilson standing when they charged him with a crime related to carrying outside his home.

 

Where did i say anything close to what you are asking?  The question of standing -- and the ruling -- which you literally said you disagree with me on, was taken directly from the decision:Here's what the HSC said:
Like i said, the state filing charges gave Wilson standing, and then the state tried to argue he had no standing.   

I am trying to explain it to you. The HSC said Wilson had no standing to challenge the CCW law because he had not applied for one. I never denied he had standing to challenge the place to keep laws. By saying that Wilson didn't have standing to challenge the CCW law this allowed the HSC to avoid the question of whether Hawaii's CCW law was constitutional. He had standing to challenge place to keep pistol and place to keep ammo, not for being denied a CCW. If Wilson had a CCW then he would have had a defense to the place to keep law. If he had applied but been denied a CCW unconstitutionally then he would have had standing because he could argue his CCW rights were denied unconstitutionally which therefore denied him of the legal defense to place to keep.

Why can't you just read the document yourself?

Already did, that's why I am disagreeing with you. You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.


Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.

Read Bruen again.

You seem to be under some delusion that if everyone reads the same document they are all going to share your opinion about it.

Because when people give examples, they can make anykine right? Instead of admitting the example was bad, here we go....Thanks for paying.

Like I said, I am sure you are smart enough to get the point. Nitpicking my example isn't a rebuttal to my point. Abandon all examples then so you can be happy, explaining facts to you about the HSC decision is not the same thing as agreeing with their decision. Don't need an example, your point was a non sequitur.

Still waiting for you to prove that courts cannot use caselaw and law prior to the founding of the USA.