Hawaii Bans Assault Weapons, Overturns Second Amendment and SCOTUS Decisions

Hawaii has decided that the Second Amendment does not apply to their state,based in part on "The Spirit of Aloha", and overturned the US Supreme Court rulings on gun ownership for individuals.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...rt-2024-02-08/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBV3cQhKbAk

Hawaii bans “assault weapons”, including "Assault Pistols."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7pVyXQ3AMQ

Old news. Already a thread on this.

And that’s not what happened. No Supreme Court decision was overturned.

From your link - second paragraph even - Justice Todd Eddins wrote in a unanimous 5-0 decision, on Wednesday that under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, "states retain the authority to require individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public."

You’ve had nearly three weeks to read the article you posted. Whasup with that?

SNICK

ICU doesn't like facts. He is like Salty. Factually bereft.

Again: We will see what the US Supreme Court foes on this.

The Heller decision established that the Second Amendment provides an individuals the right to own and carry firearms.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Additionally, Hawaii has declared that the Second Amendment no longer applies to the State of Hawaii. A parallel example would be if one of the deep south states that formed part of the Confederacy were to declare that the 14th Amendment no longer was operative for them, and that slavery was again legal.

While that would never happen today, the example is exactly parallel with the the situation in Hawaii.

A state cann ot choose to ignore a part of the Constitution.

The Heller decision established that the Second Amendment provides an individuals the right to own and carry firearms.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

[/B] Originally Posted by ICU 812

The Heller decision did not provide an unrestricted right of individuals to carry firearms outside their home.

"Concealed carry vs open carry

“Concealed carry” refers to laws permitting people to possess a firearm in public but out of public view. In 2021, 33 states, and Washington, DC allow people to carry a concealed firearm if they have a state permit. Seventeen states place no restriction on carrying a concealed firearm.

“Open carry,” in contrast, refers to bearing visible firearms in public places. In 2021, 42 states allow for open carry of some or all firearms. Three states — California, Florida, and Illinois —plus Washington, DC generally prohibit people from openly carrying firearms in public. New York and South Carolina prohibit openly carrying handguns but not long guns. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey prohibit openly carrying long guns but not handguns. In the remaining states, people are allowed to openly carry firearms, although some states require permits or licenses."

https://usafacts.org/articles/right-...aws-explained/

Again: We will see what the US Supreme Court foes on this.

The Heller decision established that the Second Amendment provides an individuals the right to own and carry firearms.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Additionally, Hawaii has declared that the Second Amendment no longer applies to the State of Hawaii. A parallel example would be if one of the deep south states that formed part of the Confederacy were to declare that the 14th Amendment no longer was operative for them, and that slavery was again legal.

While that would never happen today, the example is exactly parallel with the the situation in Hawaii.

A state cann ot choose to ignore a part of the Constitution. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Again, not true.

Facts continue to escape the right wing of this forum. ICU and Salty are the worst offenders.

What, exactly, have I said that is "not true"?

How is my position erroneous?

How is it that a state's legislature can declare that a portion of the Constitution is no longer operative in their state?

If that was possible, the Confederacy would still exist.

What, exactly, have I said that is "not true"?

How is my position erroneous?

How is it that a state's legislature can declare that a portion of the Constitution is no longer operative in their state?

If that was possible, the Confederacy would still exist. Originally Posted by ICU 812

So would prohibition (errr, still is somewhere, right? I wonder if the same group would celebrate both?)

You didn't read the story you posted, did you? You simply posted a link to a grievance YouTube and the Heller decision. What does that prove?

We've tried to point out the difference between what YOU wrote and what Hawai'i did.

If you're unable to understand, then that's gotta be on you, bro.

Hawaii has decided that the Second Amendment does not apply to their state,based in part on "The Spirit of Aloha",... Originally Posted by ICU 812

Aloha also means Goodbye. I do wonder how they decided to describe what an AR15 is though, err, uhhmm, I mean beyond a scary looking, black, thing-a-ma-jiggy, rifle.

Forcing acquiescence to what is on the part of those who wish it was not, is not why I contribute to this forum.

I write here in the hope of reaching and influencing those who are persuadable on these matters but who may not be active contributors. Other forums on this message board call them "Lurkers".

No, I do not always "get it right", but striver to. Citing stories that do not originate with the pundits and stand up "comedians" on the liberal left does not automatically make the article or video not true, however much one dislikes the author or presenter's style, or the degree of intensity with which one dislikes with the content.

What, exactly, have I said that is "not true"?

How is my position erroneous?

How is it that a state's legislature can declare that a portion of the Constitution is no longer operative in their state?

If that was possible, the Confederacy would still exist. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Here is your statement:

"The Heller decision established that the Second Amendment provides an individuals the right to own and carry firearms."

The Heller decision did not address the right of individuals to carry firearms. As stated in the decision:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

As I pointed out, several states have enacted laws limiting the right to carrying of handguns.

So would prohibition (errr, still is somewhere, right? I wonder if the same group would celebrate both?)

You didn't read the story you posted, did you? You simply posted a link to a grievance YouTube and the Heller decision. What does that prove? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well, non-compliance has historically been celebrated by the progressive left as either Civil Disobedience, or more recently as Resistance.

Distilling ardent spirits in contravention of the law fits the progressive tradition of Henry Thorough, Joe Hill and the original leaders of the Civil Rights movement.

The Supreme court's so-called Heller decision stylized that the Second Amendment provides to citizens a right to poses and transport firearms as individuals, without regard to membership in a government sponsored organization.

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1063438253]...The Heller decision did not address the right of individuals to carry firearms. As stated in the decision:.[./QUOTE]I rate that kinda-sorta-correctish. The case was about owning guns in the home only, technically. But there is this from Cornell Law:
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&c ontext=facpub

...Does Heller Protect a Right to Carry?
grounds in the opinion for extending the holding to public possession and
some grounds for limiting it to the home. Part II offers a normative
justification for limiting the right to the home. Part III offers an argument
rooted in the Court's First Amendment and right-of-privacy jurisprudence
for such a limit, and evaluates how receptive the Justices would likely be to
that argument.
I. WHAT THE HELLER COURT SAID ABOUT PUBLIC POSSESSION
The principal mode of analysis in Heller's majority opinion is public-
meaning originalism. Justice Scalia seeks the "normal meaning" that would
"have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation." 8 Under
the Court's approach, the text of the Second Amendment would appear to
guarantee a right to public possession of firearms. The Court interprets
"keep Arms" to mean "have weapons" and "bear" to mean "carry." 9 Thus,
the people have a right to have and carry weapons. Nothing in the text of the
Second Amendment itself limits that right to the home, and it would be odd
to attribute to the founding generation the hidden intent to protect a right to
carry weapons from place to place but only within the confines of their
houses, from the drawing room to the parlor, say.
Moreover, the Heller opinion clearly contemplates the carrying of
firearms outside the home. For example, Justice Scalia opines that
Americans in the founding generation valued firearms for self-defense and
hunting even more highly than they valued such arms for militia service. 10
And in trying to show that in the middle of the Nineteenth Century the
Second Amendment was understood to protect possession and use of
firearms outside of militia service, he quotes an 1856 speech by Charles
Sumner describing "the rifle" as the "tutelary protector against the red man
and the beast of the forest," and ascribing protection to "at least one article
in our National Constitution."" It is hard to imagine that either Senator
Sumner or Justice Scalia imagined the frontiersman encountering "the red
man" or "the beast of the forest" (as attacker or as prey) only in his home.
Likewise, Justice Scalia draws support from Nineteenth Century state
court decisions upholding a right to carry firearms openly and distinguishes
another state court decision denying a right to carry concealed weapons....

FWIW: Yale finds similar: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/open-carry-for-all-heller-and-our-nineteenth-century-second-amendment

...This Note argues that Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts should engage in a historical analysis when examining the right to carry. Such a historical examination—guided by the sources, methodology, and logic of Heller—yields two important conclusions: (1) the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry outside the home, and (2) it guarantees only a right to carry openly. While much of the history examined by the Supreme Court gives little indication of early understandings of the right to carry, the one set of sources consulted by the Court that speaks unequivocally on the right to carry—antebellum state supreme court cases—suggests that only the open carry of weapons is protected. This conclusion, not yet advanced in the scholarship, differs from arguments by many advocates of gun control, which suggest that there should be no right to carry outside the home, and those suggested by many advocates of gun rights, which would allow states to choose between open and concealed carry, as long as one is guaranteed....

Looks like I had fused two separate decisions in my mind.

"Heller", cited in the OP, established that gun ownership is an individual right.

The "Bruen decision" established that an indevisual may carry a firearm in public.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

Both decisions are, of course more complicated than that, but for this thread, that is the essence.

In my ineffectual view, the Stste of Hawaii is in violation Federal law in the form of the Second Amendment, as established by these two Supreme Court rulings.