Last Sunday, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interrupted an interview with Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) over the impression that the Ohio Republican was open to presidents defying Supreme Court rulings and ignoring the rule of law. It was a inexpensive shot that even Vance’s critics found absurd. Vance offered a hypothesis about when such a moment would be appropriate, such as a Court ruling stating that the president of the United States cannot fire a general. This would be an unlawful ruling. This was a hypothetical that Vance had started by saying he hoped something like this would never enter the realm of reality. Well, it happened in Hawaii at the state Supreme Court level.
The Aloha State overturned a lower court ruling involving a man, Christopher Wilson, who was charged with possessing a firearm without a license. The court’s ruling was that the lower court’s decision was wrong because the Hawaii state constitution does not protect gun rights. Therefore, there is no Bill of Rights on the island. Furthermore, were these lawyers informed of the Bruen and Heller decisions? The Hawaiian Supreme Court rebelled and, dare I say, adopted an insurrectionary tone (via Reload):
Ah yes, the “Spirit of Aloha” clause in the Constitution that allows the Hawaii Supreme Court to ignore or overturn SCOTUS. https://t.co/FuMqYqi0SQ
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) February 8, 2024
I’m sorry to have to inform the Supreme Court of Hawaii, but the “Spirit of Aloha” does not currently replace the Second Amendment. Their interpretation, contrary to an individual’s right to bear arms, is wrong and should be rejected. https://t.co/sHtFhemSMG
— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 8, 2024
“We read these words differently than the current U.S. Supreme Court. We believe that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”
This is wild. A court in Hawaii has declared itself above the U.S. Supreme Court. https://t.co/uiBJcvKjuu
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) February 7, 2024
The Aloha State Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a man’s conviction for carrying a gun after overturning landmark decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
The Supreme Court of Hawaii overturned a lower court’s decision that found charges against Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun without a license violated his rights. Instead, the court ruled that the state constitution provided no protection for the right to bear arms. This is despite the fact that it contains a provision protecting the people’s right to keep and bear arms identical to those in the federal constitution.
“Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of Hawaii reflects the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” the Hawaii court wrote in Hawaii v. Wilson. “We read these words differently than the current U.S. Supreme Court. We believe that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”
This ruling stands in direct contrast to the major holdings at the center of SCOTUS gun rights precedents. The state supreme court’s ruling expressly rejects the federal high court’s findings in the 2008 cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and the 2022 case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. A lower court’s direct rejection of a higher court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence could prompt SCOTUS to take up the matter and issue a reprimand, as it did when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in 2016’s Caetano that the protection did not extend to state-of-the-art weapons.
“It seems to us that there is no doubt, both textually and historically, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,” the majority wrote in Heller. Similarly, in Bruen, SCOTUS held that “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
In its ruling, the court also referred to the HBO program “The Wire”.
“As the world changes, it makes no sense for modern society to pledge allegiance to the culture, realities, laws and understanding of the Constitution of the founding era. “It’s about the old days, it’s the old days.”
Worse still, the judicial body said, “The Aloha Spirit conflicts with a federally enforced lifestyle that allows citizens to walk around with deadly weapons while going about their daily activities.”
Having an insular spirit is not a license to overturn the US Constitution – is this middle school? The Left has repeatedly faced difficulties with the passage of novel gun laws, so I assume its judges are now creating their own fiefdoms through ad hoc legislation. Mr. Vance should utilize this as an example of judicial dishonesty.
What a crazy ruling that also shows the immaturity of the left. They can’t win in the court of public opinion, so they get enraged and, in the process, sullied and humiliate the institutions they claim to protect. At the federal level, you’ve already seen the damage done in the Justice Department’s crusade against Trump.
