The Second Amendment is often under attack, but this recent gesture from the Hawaii Supreme Court, undermining Hawaiians’ right to bear arms, seems far-fetched even for a state striving to maintain tranquility and beauty.
In a bizarre ruling issued Wednesday, the Hawaii Supreme Court argued that landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen were decided incorrectly and that the Second Amendment does not translate to an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather it is a “collective right” for a militia. As such, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed charges of a Hawaii resident who chose to carry a firearm without a permit.
In the court’s opinion, Justice Todd Eddins wrote, in part, “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. … The government’s interest in reducing firearm violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved peace and tranquility in Hawai’i. A free wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights.”
At one point, Eddins argues Hawaii’s laws and policies on gun rights have evolved from the antiquated Bill of Rights, that irrelevant amendment to the Constitution, and cites Slim Charles, a fictional character from the hit show The Wire: “As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution. ‘The thing about the old days, they the old days.’”
It’s a relief to know that the Hawaii Supreme Court relies on anecdotes from a television show to craft a ruling that’s brazenly disdainful of laws and policies based on our nation’s centuries-old founding documents.
The ruling comes following a legal battle between Christopher Wilson and the state of Hawaii. Wilson was arrested in 2017 for openly carrying a pistol on his person for protection while hiking and charged with multiple firearm offenses. He sued, claiming the charges violated his rights. Wilson did appear to break Hawaii’s laws, which require residents to have a carrying a concealed weapon license, although due to its anti-firearm policy stances, Hawaii issues such licenses rarely and only under extreme circumstances.
In the ruling, the Hawaii Supreme Court argued that Wilson didn’t have standing to challenge the state’s concealed carry criteria because he had never bothered to apply for one in the first place. Be that as it may, it doesn’t sound like Wilson would have been successful, and to him — and staunch Second Amendment advocates — that is one of the major points of contention. Subjective, strict laws on concealed weapons in states often exist because of active disdain for the Second Amendment, not trying to ensure a citizen has robust access to it. That seems to be the case here with Wilson.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Whether Hawaii likes the Second Amendment or not, or the state Supreme Court believes Heller and Bruen jibe with its quixotic island life, matters little. The Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court ensure an individual has a right to bear arms even beyond one’s house. Ironically, should a need ever arise, God forbid, to protect Hawaii’s coveted “spirit of aloha,” it may be a bevy of firearm users, both individual and collective, that would protect it. Certainly, history has taught us that.
I see your “spirit of aloha,” as lovely and utopian as it may be, and I raise you the constitutional right to bear arms that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed again and again.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a mother of four and an opinion columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Texas.
