Hawaii Rejection of Right to Bear Arms

[BehindBlueI's]

As I've said before, there should be some penalty for something like this.
They can't 'overrule" the Supreme Court.

Someone posted the exact verbiage up thread, but to re-iterate they specifically stated they were doing so:

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.

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

Lawyers play semantics for a living, and note they say "state right", referring to their own state constitution vs the 2nd amendment SCOTUS decided on.

Also of interest:

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.

Of some interest for different reasons, the defendent was trespassing on someone else's property. That someone else was Ting. Ting had a rifle:

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.

So nobody batted an eye at Ting's AR-15, which actually surprises me a bit.

Reading on, I'm not so sure it's the slam dunk overturn on appeal that the media report would make it seem:

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.

It goes on, but basically the court didn't reject his second amendment issues, they said he lacked standing to challenge them because he illegally owned the gun to begin with, never attempted to get a permit so he can't challenge permit laws, and lied about where he got the gun and was committing another crime at the time. While I find Hawaii's rules overly burdensome and not in line with the 2nd amendment (I didn't bother to carry there because I didn't want to deal with registering my gun with the police for a more-than-5-day-visit), I'm not sure they got the technicality that he's not the one who can complain wrong. I'm not saying they didn't, mind you, I'm just saying it's not nearly as clear cut as first blush made it seem.

 

[JAL]

. . .
It goes on, but basically the court didn't reject his second amendment issues, they said he lacked standing to challenge them because he illegally owned the gun to begin with, never attempted to get a permit so he can't challenge permit laws, and lied about where he got the gun and was committing another crime at the time.
. . .

I believe the U.S. Constitutional challenge will cite the defendant being one of "The People" the 2nd Amendment covers, as already well settled law in other significant precedential cases that cannot be relitigated, and Hawaii cannot ignore or dispute this.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I believe the U.S. Constitutional challenge will cite the defendant being one of "The People" the 2nd Amendment covers, as already well settled law in other significant precedential cases that cannot be relitigated, and Hawaii cannot ignore or dispute this.

Did SCOTUS say you can't require carry permits or require local registration?

 

[JAL]

Did SCOTUS say you can't require carry permits or require local registration?

I was referring to the Hawaiian court finding he lacked standing to challenge the laws on constitutional grounds. Whether he would have prevailed in a litigated challenge to those laws is another matter, but not having standing to challenge the laws mooted and ended it. That "standing" decision, IMHO, is a fatal error in the Hawaiian Supreme Court's decision which could have the case remanded back to litigate the constitutional challenge.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was referring to the Hawaiian court finding he lacked standing to challenge the laws on constitutional grounds. Whether he would have prevailed in a litigated challenge to those laws is another matter, but not having standing to challenge the laws mooted and ended it. That "standing" decision, IMHO, is a fatal error in the Hawaiian Supreme Court's decision which could have the case remanded back to litigate the constitutional challenge.

Their logic is "you're carrying illegally so you don't have standing to challenge the restriction on places you can go with as a legal carrier, which is what SCOTUS ruled on". I'm not going to be fall out of my chair shocked regardless of which way any appeals go, but I don't think it's as clear cut as originally presented.

 

[Leadeye]

How much of that state is owned by foreigners? The real power may have different ideas about "rights".

 

[Bluedragon]

What I find disgusting about this unconstitutionality is the fact they sighted a fictional television show "The Wire" made by left leaning writers no doubt as if it carries any weight over the constitution's right to bear arms. Propoganda much? No valid argument but a tv show?

The disregard for the right as something from the "old days" also shows me that they don't respect nor care for America's way of life on freedom. Why are they a part of the U.S again? These people sound tyrannical.

 

[JAL]

Their logic is "you're carrying illegally so you don't have standing to challenge the restriction on places you can go with as a legal carrier, which is what SCOTUS ruled on". I'm not going to be fall out of my chair shocked regardless of which way any appeals go, but I don't think it's as clear cut as originally presented.

My thoughts regarding Christopher Wilson's "standing" went to the Bryan Range's "Felon in Possession" case in which the government's argument (in part) claimed Range didn't have standing because he wasn't covered by the "The People" in the 2nd Amendment as a convicted felon. The 3rd Circuit ruled that even convicted felons are part of "The People", not just the moral, ethical, and law-abiding (and who, pray tell, would determine who is and isn't). In other words, there are no "outlaws" in the formal definition of the term as persons "outside the laws" and not protected by any whatsoever, including from murder (homo sacer). That's a concept dating back to the Roman Empire that was a major part of British Law into 19th Century (1879 for Civil Outlawry in England). British criminals were declared "caput lupinum" (wolf's head) and could be killed on sight with impunity. AFAIK they still can be under British criminal law, but Criminal Outlawry is no longer used. The 3rd Circuit's logic in that regard is sound. If a convicted felon weren't part of "The People" with rights protected by the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, they also wouldn't be protected by the 4th, 5th, or 8th Amendments in particular.

How it spills out in further Federal appeals - if he pursues them - regarding Hawaii's licensing, carry and storage laws remains to be seen. The string to pull on using the Bryan Range case, which is the current most usable Federal precedent (albeit SCOTUS has issued cert for it), is separating the issues of whether he was carrying illegally, and constitutionality of those state restrictions, from the constitutionality of state restrictions on where he was carrying it.

As an aside, at the state level, Wilson has a problem explaining how the pistol came into his possession. It remained unresolved in the Hawaii Supreme Court case docs I found. It was originally sold in Florida. I'm predicting he spends some (additional) time in the graybar hotel. It's a matter of how much.

 

[manifest destiny]

"No standing".
The judicial duck and weave.

 

[Twangbanger]

"No standing".
The judicial duck and weave.

It sounds like a copout. But god help us if people who don't have standing are allowed to start bringing suits. It's probably drawing the line too far on the side of safety, but I'm strangely ok with it. I feel like most "judicial activism" works counter to my beliefs and interests, so I like knowing the "other side" has to work hard finding cases and plaintiffs.

 

[Kdf101]

So what happens if a government, state, local, federal, just decides to completely ignore a Supreme Court ruling? If there is an enforcement procedure, I don’t know what it is.

 

[JAL]

It sounds like a copout. But god help us if people who don't have standing are allowed to start bringing suits. It's probably drawing the line too far on the side of safety, but I'm strangely ok with it. I feel like most "judicial activism" works counter to my beliefs and interests, so I like knowing the "other side" has to work hard finding cases and plaintiffs.

I agree in concept that having "standing" as an affected party (or a potentially affected one) is important to prevent wasting court time and hopelessly clogging dockets. That said, Governments at all levels all too often try to use it to short-circuit a claim with a summary dismissal. It was tried in at least one of the more recent ATF Rule lawsuits, claiming the plaintiffs didn't have any standing as they hadn't willfully violated the ATF Rule (and therefore the law), which they were subject to. By ATF's logic, you needed to violate criminal law, and admit to it waiving 5th Amendment Rights, before suing with a civil claim that it's unconstitutional. Court didn't buy it, but the Guvmint with unlimited deep pockets threw that pasta against the kitchen wall anyway to consume time and cost the plaintiff's money opposing it.

 

[manifest destiny]

It sounds like a copout. But god help us if people who don't have standing are allowed to start bringing suits. It's probably drawing the line too far on the side of safety, but I'm strangely ok with it. I feel like most "judicial activism" works counter to my beliefs and interests, so I like knowing the "other side" has to work hard finding cases and plaintiffs.

We kinda get this with tort law. McD's gets sued for hot coffee that is too hot. Subway gets sued for a 12" sandwich that is less than 12", even though the input weight of materials are equevalent. I agree with your premis in the main. Judicial activism is wrong regardless of which side one is on. To declare 'no standing' is to avoid judging the evidence more often than not IMO.

For a court to accept a tort claim re: length of sandwich but deny claims of constitutional violations seems, to me, to be a duck and weave.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We kinda get this with tort law. McD's gets sued for hot coffee that is too hot.

Well, that one was actually pretty legit once you look in to it. Don't know about the Subway one. Maybe it was 12" but then it got cold?

 

[manifest destiny]

Well, that one was actually pretty legit once you look in to it. Don't know about the Subway one. Maybe it was 12" but then it got cold?

Did the consumer request cold coffee? What is the threshold for hot coffee to be too hot? I jest, but the law suit is frivolous. Your last sentence is gold, very funny. "Shrinkage!"

 

[KLB]

Did the consumer request cold coffee? What is the threshold for hot coffee to be too hot? I jest, but the law suit is frivolous. Your last sentence is gold, very funny. "Shrinkage!"

BBI is right, you need to look at the details of that McDonald's lawsuit.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here are some excerpts for you.

She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13]

Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[16][17]

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's[15] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[18] McDonald's offered only $800.[19]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[12] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[12][23]

 

[Cameramonkey]

He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about.

What most people miss in this lawsuit is the fact that McDs purposefully served their coffee FAR above the safe levels for the express reason of cost savings.

They also offered free refills during this time period so they wanted to make sure that if you ordered a coffee, you werent going to be able to finish the coffee and ask for a refill before you left.

 

[bgcatty]

Hawaii is full of woke whining liberal idiots! Sorry for the redundancy but these idiots just can’t totally ignore the Second Amendment.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Did the consumer request cold coffee? What is the threshold for hot coffee to be too hot? I jest, but the law suit is frivolous.

Either you didn't look in to it at all before forming an opinion or you think there's no way to determine that food capable of causing injury as serious as 3rd degree burns can be determined as 'too hot'. Either way, we can just agree to disagree.

 

[DadSmith]