Hawaii case on the Second….

[rabid wombat]

Better?

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

 

[General Geoff]

Aside from the Justices waxing philosophical on how a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights", the meat and potatoes of their ruling is this (page 52):

C. HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not violate Wilson’s
right to bear arms under the Second Amendment
We also hold that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. . . . [T]he right [is] not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. States retain the authority
to require that individuals have a license before carrying
firearms in public. Id. at 79-80 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)
(“[T]he Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing
licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-
defense.”); Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271, 312 (2d Cir.
2023) (“Licensing that includes discretion that is bounded by
defined standards, we conclude, is part of this nation’s history
and tradition of firearm regulation and therefore in compliance
with the Second Amendment.”).

HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) allow a person to carry a
handgun for self-defense outside the home if they have a license
issued per HRS § 134-9. See HRS § 134-25(a) (“Except as
provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be
confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or
sojourn” (emphasis added)); HRS § 134-27(a) (restricting the
possession of ammunition based on HRS § 134-5 and § 134-9).
HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not graze Wilson’s
Second Amendment right. Because he has no standing, Wilson’s
constitutional challenge to HRS § 134-9, Hawaiʻi’s licensing law,
fails. See supra section III.A.2.

The circuit court erred by dismissing the place to keep
offenses, HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27. Those laws do not violate
Wilson’s constitutional rights under article I, section 17 or
the Second Amendment.

Dude didn't bother to even apply for a license, and since he didn't apply, he was not denied, and thus does not have standing to even challenge said licensing law under Bruen

 

[rabid wombat]

Dude didn't bother to even apply for a license, and since he didn't apply, he was not denied, and thus does not have standing to even challenge said licensing law under Bruen

I am not a lawyer…. From another site: “The reason that Wilson lacked standing is that he didn’t bother to pay for and go to the trouble of applying for a permit that would not be granted. There is plenty of case law that says a person does not have to do something that they know will fail before they have standing.”

Sorry Hawaii,

Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We ho…

gunfreezone.net

Other will need to chime in….

 

[CapnMac]

I'd like to see the Historical Antecedents for requiring Citizens to supplicate their own government for a Permit to exercise their own Rights.

 

[lilguy]

I‘ve believed all along that this is where we would go with the gun debate. State and local governments refusing to back track on their controls.Whats SCOTUS going to do, send in their militia to enforce Bruen? This will be interesting, ignoring them could become habit forming.

 

[natman]

I‘ve believed all along that this is where we would go with the gun debate. State and local governments refusing to back track on their controls.Whats SCOTUS going to do, send in their militia to enforce Bruen? This will be interesting, ignoring them could become habit forming.

There is precedent for dealing with this kind of defiance of the rule of law. In the 60s Democrat George Wallace defied SCOTUS over Brown vs Board of Education, vowing "Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever." It took an executive branch willing to stand behind the Supreme Court and mobilize the National Guard to enforce the law to overcome his defiance.

We're not going to get enforcement from the current administration. I dream of an administration that will do its job and perp walk the Hawaii Supreme Court into a police van.

 

[MEHavey]

All it will take is a civil suit for millions to open this up like an onion.
Lawyers: weigh in on whether sovereign immunity will protect them if you will

 

[5whiskey]

Sigh... Judicial Immunity is pretty absolute. There may be an avenue for a civil suit brought in federal court, but I think Judicial Immunity bars even that.

EDIT: not a lawyer, but pretty well versed in the legal system

2nd EDIT: It appears the plaintiff never applied for an permit in the first place, and hence was never denied. Why did he appeal again?

 

[Ks5shooter]

In NJ applying for a CCW permit before Bruen was always denied.That being said,one question on a pistol permit(one required for each pistol) is have you ever been denied a permit.You must answer yes and then jump through hoops to get a pistol permit.I never applied for that reason,pre-bruen.I now have my ccw thanks to Bruen.