Hawaii isn't interested in our Constitution

www.foxnews.com...

Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled that Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend to Hawaii citizens, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

I am quite shocked that this hasn't been mentioned yet. It sure seems like a pretty big deal. From a Hawaiian perspective, I can fully understand them not wanting to change their culture to match the mainland's ideals. They are an island nation with a very different culture.

But....

They are a state in the United States. Like it or lump it, that's the fact. If they are a state, and they are part of the United States, then in order to be "united", shouldn't we all have the same rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?

I see this one as a good argument both ways, with the obvious COTUS part winning, or having Hawaii removed as a state, it doesn't seem compatible to have a state that disregards parts of the fabric that binds our nation.

I will enjoy this debate. What do ya'll think?

One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

This is more evidence that it may be time for a civil, peaceful, organized divorce of the states.

Liberals and Democrats openly hate the constitution as it is written, so let them go and make their own constitutions. "Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you" www.usnews.com... ... www.usnews.com...

TX wants to defend it's borders but the Democrat President won't let it, so let it go and defend it's borders. www.usnews.com...

The divisions between liberals and Democrats are so deep and so strong and there is so much hate that it may be time, not to have a civil war, but to allow those states that wish to secede to do so peacefully. Democrats say Republicans are the party of hate. Yet daily liberal politicians and liberals in general say conservatives are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, deplorable people (Hillary), who are semi-fascists (Biden), and cling to their guns (Obama), and are insurrectionists (a criminal who deserves to be in jail) - but that isn't hate.

When Trump was President, WA, OR and CA had strong secessionist movements, why not let them go their liberal way and have drag queens for elementary teachers, and welcome all the illegal immigrants that can get there? Why not let them have a justice system that allows minor crime to run rampant, and homeless people to live on lawns in neighborhoods. Why not let them secede peacefully, with grace and peace, allowing them to write their own constitution that allows for daily changes based on the liberal ideology of the day and liberal morality of the day.

Liberals hate conservatives so much they are saying that the ONLY way to save the USA and democracy is to have everyone vote for a single-party nation, run by liberals.

THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ARE DEMANDING:
A uni-party nation, like China is what they are saying will save Democracy and the US. So let them have it if they want to secede. Because a uni-party nation is totalitarian and not a democracy in any way shape or form.

How about the spirit of ‘shall not be infringed’

a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

I lived there for 4 years in a suburb in the middle of the Island.

Hawaii doesn't want to be part of the US, they felt they were conquered and stolen by the US. This was in the 1990's and there was a strong secessionist movement then, which I understand has become stronger.


As far as requiring a permit. Many states do that and it is not against the constitution. However, that does not negate that any state that doesn't want to live under the constitution should be allowed to secede. Also states that don't want to be forced to get rid of gas appliances and lawn tools, don't want to be forced to allow women with a penis to compete in women's sports, don't want to have porous borders etc, should be allowed to peacefully and with great peace and care allowed to secede.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

They say all you need is a permit then make obtaining said permit…
1) ridiculously expensive
2) impossible to get
3) all the above

All 3 are infringements.

a reply to: network dude

Perhaps the US invasion and overthrow of the kingdom did not endear the US to the islanders, and they are just simply pushing back?

Or it could be another inevitable step in the dissolution of a state-system based in slavery, genocide and unprompted military attack?

It's a very interesting topic.

If you remove the fact its about the 2nd, which obviously can be controversial, how would this work for other parts of the constitution?

I get that was a historical argument that the bill of rights was meant to apply to federal law not state but surely it would still need to be all or nothing?

Democratic Hawaii AG hails court ruling as 'thoughtful and scholarly'

(But is also a FICTION)

So this response by a democrat state attorney general shows not only how anti-American he is, but also how stupid and someone who has no respect or willingness to obey his own oath to uphold the constitution as an AG. He was bribed and brought onboard the big democrat plan.

Because of that, shows he is connected to the rather large network of current traitors in power federally, and connected to these blue states. They are already forming their own fascist/Marxist organization within the USA with the DNC, Joe Biden's administration, and the Rhinos like Mitch McConnell and others compromised by blackmail for their deviencies and theft of government funds.

Their goals are to completely disarm as many law abiding citizens as possible, while letting violent offenders get back out without posting bail even.

They have already seceded unofficially from our union.

Never forget what law enforcement did to citizens during and after the big fires that happened fairly recently, causing the deaths of many trying to escape, and the outright theft of their property. That same AG doesn't care about them either.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

Actually, as a strong conservative, I must agree with you.

I lived there and know the sentiment.

It is time for a national peaceful divorce to be allowed. Allow HI to peacefully go, allow TX to peacefully go,

CA, WA, OR 5-6 years ago were strongly secessionist. They were refusing to accept Trump as their President, a breach of the constitution. The US should have let them go if they wanted to in peace and goodwill.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

They became a state after a referendum.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

The problem in this case isn't just permits. The problem is a Hawaiian judge has decided...
Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

From another article that isn't paywalled...

In a groundbreaking decision that reverberates far beyond the Pacific islands, the Hawaii Supreme Court has upheld a man's gun-carry conviction, dismissing landmark US Supreme Court rulings and asserting there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. This bold move directly challenges the SCOTUS's gun rights precedents, potentially inviting a rebuke from the higher court.

Source

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

They became a state after a referendum.

That is not how many feel today.

As a "right winger" I can tell you that living there for 4 years among the locals, that they want their Kingdom back.

It seems both sides are coming to the point of a civil war, which is totally unnecessary. All the US has to do is allow states to vote to secede, and then leave peacefully in cooperation with the federal government, and wish them well. Even say there must be a 60% in favor vote to be sure that is the will of the people, and then peacefully and with grace let them go.

a reply to: network dude

So are we surprised that a highly liberal blue state makes a ruling that the Constitution and the SCOTUS are nonapplicable in their magical state of fairies and Hawaiian elves?

All the more reason to never go there.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

And they may have a point.

But unless there is majority support for independence then it still is and will remain part of the US.

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: network dude

So are we surprised that a highly liberal blue state makes a ruling that the Constitution and the SCOTUS are nonapplicable in their magical state of fairies and Hawaiian elves?

All the more reason to never go there.

Wrong, All the more reason to let them divorce the USA in peace, especially if they are openly at odds with the constitution, as Obama was and many Democrats and liberals are quite open about wanting a new Constitution. See LA Times, very liberal leftist paper www.latimes.com... "Finally, we have the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. The framers could not have imagined a world where anyone’s thoughts could be broadcast in an instant. Germany has laws banning certain kinds of hate speech, as does Britain, and both countries seem to stumble along just fine. In America, spewing racist, misogynistic, blatantly dishonest claptrap is considered a right. As for the 2nd Amendment, gun rights proponents ignore the part about the “well-regulated militia,” and the Supreme Court has abetted this willful ignorance."

Liberals and conservatives are at odds,
with liberals now insisting conservatives are outright criminals (insurrectionists, domestic terrorists) for their conservative views.

A peaceful national divorce may be the answer, done with grace, done with respect, and done with care may be the only way to stop the next civil war, which is totally unnecessary as well as evil to consider.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

All the more reason to never go there.

All the more reason to let them divorce the USA in peace

See? I wasn't wrong, I was right. We can all leave them alone and let them do their thing. If there's such a long history blanketed in distain between the mainland US and Hawaii, let's ALL never go there. We can get divorced, they can be happy, we can be happy, and Oprah can go get bent with her land purchases.

a reply to: chr0naut

They never chose to be part of the US.

The clue is in the top left hand corner of The Hawaii State Flag.