Hawaii Defies Bruen Ruling, Voids Second Amendment in Aloha

[sunny225]

thenewamerican.com/us/hawaii-defies-bruen-ruling-voids-second-amendment-in-aloha-state/?mc_cid=0995719117&mc_eid=530b104631

Hawaii Defies Bruen Ruling, Voids Second Amendment in Aloha State



In a remarkable reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii ruled on Wednesday that an individual exercising rights guaranteed under that Amendment was guilty of violating the state’s laws supporting that right.

If that seems counter-intuitive to you, you’re not alone.

In its ruling the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii noted that the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is identical with the wording in Hawaii’s constitution:

Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

However, the high court in the Aloha State took great pains — 53 pages of them — to reinterpret it:

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.

In December 2017, the prosecuting attorney of the County of Maui charged Christopher Wilson of violating the state’s “place to keep” laws. He was found stargazing on what he learned later was private property. Police were called and Wilson told officers that he was armed. He was carrying a 22-caliber pistol with a 10-round magazine attached.

more at link

[farmrbrown]

OK, 2 things.

1) If Hawaii doesn't like the USC they can always secede and form their own country. Heck if I lived there I might even help'em!
(Rebels gotta be Rebels ya know)

AND

2) The guy arrested doesn't have a leg to stand on according to the arrest report. The link is here and the facts are stated within the court's ruling.

www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf

In December 2017, at about 11:00 p.m., Flyin Hawaiian Zipline owner Duane Ting saw men on his fenced-in property via video surveillance. Ting reported the matter to the Maui Police Department. Officers headed to Ting’s property. Meanwhile Ting, driving an all-terrain vehicle, corralled Wilson and his three companions. Armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, he detained them until the police arrived. Then Wilson volunteered to the officers: “I have a weapon in my front waist band.” The police lifted his shirt. Wilson had a Phoenix Arms .22 LR caliber pistol, loaded with ten rounds of .22 caliber ammunition. A records check reported that the pistol was unregistered in Hawaiʻi, and Wilson had not obtained or applied for a permit to own a handgun. Wilson told the police that he legally bought the gun in Florida in 2013.
B. Wilson’s Motions to Dismiss

His appeal is based on the 2nd Amendment right to carry IN PUBLIC. Unfortunately he was on someone else's land and THAT'S who he needs permission from to carry a firearm on that man's PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Where's Judge Wapner when ya need him?

[Ozarks Tom]

farmrbrown , Nope, just because it's private property doesn't mean it's not in public. Unless there are postings saying "NO TRESPASSING" or "NO WEAPONS of ANY KIND ALLOWED".

If I visiting someone, and I'm carrying a pistol, am I supposed to stand on the sidewalk and yell to the house asking permission to come on their property?

The question before the court was about whether the 2nd Amendment, and the clearly written Bruen ruling applied to Hawaii. Yes, Hawaii is a State, and as a State the entire Constitution applies to them just like Missouri.

Having a "permit" to own a gun? Find that in the Constitution. SCOTUS is negating State law after law the the anti-gun politicians have tried to enforce. If, in a sane world, SCOTUS really followed the Constitution the 1934 Firearms Act would be found invalid. There's no codicil in the Constitution that limits ownership of a firearm of any kind, be it felon, full automatic, or even "scary" looks.

[sunny225]

I'm with you Ozarks Tom. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention having to have a permit nor do you have to register any guns.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[farmrbrown]

Feb 9, 2024 22:52:51 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

farmrbrown , Nope, just because it's private property doesn't mean it's not in public. Unless there are postings saying "NO TRESPASSING" or "NO WEAPONS of ANY KIND ALLOWED".

If I visiting someone, and I'm carrying a pistol, am I supposed to stand on the sidewalk and yell to the house asking permission to come on their property?

The question before the court was about whether the 2nd Amendment, and the clearly written Bruen ruling applied to Hawaii. Yes, Hawaii is a State, and as a State the entire Constitution applies to them just like Missouri.

Having a "permit" to own a gun? Find that in the Constitution. SCOTUS is negating State law after law the the anti-gun politicians have tried to enforce. If, in a sane world, SCOTUS really followed the Constitution the 1934 Firearms Act would be found invalid. There's no codicil in the Constitution that limits ownership of a firearm of any kind, be it felon, full automatic, or even "scary" looks.

I agree with you on the Constitution part, but the public/private land issue is the main issue I see here, particularly because it wasn't HIS property. In this case, he was charged with trespassing although it appears that he hasn't been tried or convicted of it yet.
The state cited 4 statutes and it's obvious they are trying to get an UNconstitutional  decision usurping the 2nd amendment but what I'm saying is, the 4th charge is where Wilson's appeal falls apart.

He allegedly violated: (1) HRS § 134-25(a) place to keep firearm, (2) HRS § 134-27(a) place to keep ammunition, (3) HRS § 134-2 (2011 & Supp. 2017) permit to acquire ownership
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
of a firearm, and (4) HRS § 708-813(1)(b) (2014 & Supp. 2015), first degree criminal trespass.

It was fenced, he wasn't invited and from what I could read he didn't "see" any No Trespassing signs......don't know if there were signs posted or not but the owner made it clear he was trespassing.

If I visiting someone, and I'm carrying a pistol, am I supposed to stand on the sidewalk and yell to the house asking permission to come on their property?

I can't speak for you, but it's a "Yes" for me.
Now, if I KNOW you, you usually expect me to be armed and I'm invited, then I'd assume it was ok. Otherwise, I'm asking permission rather than forgiveness AFTER you find out. LOL


THIS is what I'm referring to in the court ruling.

Wilson possessed an unlicensed, concealed, and loaded handgun to, he says, protect himself. Only certain factual circumstances justify shooting another human in Hawaiʻi. Per HRS § 703-304(2), “[t]he use of deadly force is justifiable . . . if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect [themself] against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.” HRS § 703-304(2) (2014).
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
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
commit a crime while armed. See People v. Gonzalez, 291 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127, 130 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (“We are aware of no court decision holding that the United States Constitution protects a right to carry a gun while simultaneously engaging in criminal conduct.”); United States v. Perez-Garcia, No. 22-CR- 1581-GPC, 2022 WL 17477918, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2022) (“ reasonable interpretation of Bruen is that it does not obfuscate the requirement that, as a threshold matter, to receive Second Amendment protection, one must first and foremost be law abiding.”).
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
17

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
conduct does not prevent him from challenging the charges under the Second Amendment and article I, section 17.
So we go to Wilson’s article I, section 17 constitutional challenge.

[Ozarks Tom]

Sorry, but Hawaii's Supreme Court is full of it. From the ruling:

Only certain factual circumstances justify shooting another human in Hawaiʻi. Per HRS § 703-304(2), “[t]he use of deadly force is justifiable . . . if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect [themself] against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.”

In other words, a person is supposed to run home when confronted by an armed aggressor to get his gun. Otherwise, a person is expected to go without personal defense knowing the State's slogan is Aloha.

Neither Sweet Bride nor I go anywhere without a means to protect ourselves and those around us. Why? Because nutjobs don't advertise their answer to imagined grievances.

[sunny225]

[farmrbrown]

Feb 10, 2024 0:09:16 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

Sorry, but Hawaii's Supreme Court is full of it. From the ruling:

Only certain factual circumstances justify shooting another human in Hawaiʻi. Per HRS § 703-304(2), “[t]he use of deadly force is justifiable . . . if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect [themself] against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.”

In other words, a person is supposed to run home when confronted by an armed aggressor to get his gun. Otherwise, a person is expected to go without personal defense knowing the State's slogan is Aloha.

Neither Sweet Bride nor I go anywhere without a means to protect ourselves and those around us. Why? Because nutjobs don't advertise their answer to imagined grievances.

Oh, I completely understand what you're saying. When someone brings forth a case to the courts, it's easy to see their agenda. And yes the attempt by Hawaii to deny the 2nd Amd in that state will hopefully get quashed by the SCOTUS. But if Wilson gets convicted of the trespassing charge, he can't win anything more than a jail term. As far as I know most states have laws about having a firearm while committing a crime - usually any crime. Some have automatic felony sentences attached like 1 to 5 years depending on what you did. So unless all the judges in that state get brain tumors or aneurisms, etc. I don't think he has any chance at all of winning this case. None. He wasn't carrying in public OR on his own property and that's where most of the Bill of Rights ends. Your property or in public. If you're on MY property, I'M the law, lol.

And I know better than most people how it feels to be relatively defenseless (unarmed) when your life or safety is threatened. Many times over the last 20+ years, I've weighed the risk of getting a gun for personal protection against the possibility of a long prison sentence if I was caught possessing one. 3 to 5 minimum and maybe longer, it just depends how close you are to death at that moment that tips the scale a little. It's not only 2 legged creatures either, I live in the woods, for real lol. I've thought about what would happen if I WAS attacked and managed to survive. Only THEN would I have "standing" in the court's eyes to bring a lawsuit to change the law. They rarely let you sue based on a hypothetical case of "what if?"