I am not sure if this is best here so go ahead and move if needed. Note that there are easy to Google other sources for this story.
From the title:
Hawaii’s Supreme Court refused to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gun rights in an opinion released on Wednesday, declaring that “the spirit of Aloha clashes” with the Second Amendment, which guarantees Americans an individual right to bear arms.
< snip >
Its decision was based on the Court’s interpretation of Article I, Section 17 of Hawaii’s constitution, which “mirrors the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
“We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawai’i there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public,” began the Court at the top of its opinion before going on to assert that “the spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.” - SOURCE
I guess the question for debate is…what next? What happens when states officially snub the US Supreme Court? Is this a, “they made their decision, let them enforce it thing”? While I am no fan of guns and I have not been a fan of the US Supreme Court lately I am not seeing how this works out well for anyone.
I mean the Supreme court has the right to interpret the Constitution. I understand some do not like those decisions- and that’s okay. But they have to follow them.
I’ve been wondering this for a long time. What is the enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS decisions?
A couple of states have flouted the Bruen decision and the courts have done little about it.
Historically has there ever been a major decision that was outright ignored?
President Jackson- sorta- https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision. But in 1832, when South Carolina declared that it had the power to nullify federal laws with which it disagreed, Jackson at least temporarily embraced Marshall’s vision of judicial authority, issuing a proclamation of the Supreme Court’s ultimate power to decide constitutional questions and emphasizing that its decisions had to be obeyed.
The “Aloha Spirit” seems to be entrenched in Hawaii state law:
“The Aloha Spirit is so highly valued by Hawaiians that it is actually a state law to treat people with the same care and respect as their ancestors did.” The Aloha Spirit Law (skylinehawaii.com)
But, then again, so is the premise of the thread, I think.
The Hawaii opinion is here. The Hawaii Supreme Court was interpreting the Hawaii Constitution. The language of the Hawaii Constitution is identical to the federal constitution and, ordinarily, you would expect a state court to look at and apply federal court interpretation of analogous state law provisions, but I’m not sure there is any requirement that they do so.
The fact that the Hawaii Supreme Court looks instead to “Aloha” and “the Wire” as sources of statutory interpretation probably tells you something about the court and its members. But the idea that the Hawaii Constitution (as a matter of state law) means something different than the federal constitution (as a matter of federal law) isn’t at all the same as rejecting the Second Amendment or rejecting the federal Supreme Court. (Conversely, if the state court had read the same language more expansively than the federal court, the same point would be true).
The Court applies Bruen in its federal Second Amendment analysis (and rejects the claim based on standing).The court didn’t really need to reach the state constitutional question at all (except to criticize Bruen) since, presumably, if the two provisions were interpreted identically the same result would apply.
While the Hawaii Supreme Court expressed disagreement with the US Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions (Heller, in particular), I don’t think the outcome and disposition of the Hawaii case contravenes any US Supreme Court jurisprudence. Briefly, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that state laws requiring registration and a permit to carry a firearm are constitutional (and that the defendant lacked standing to challenge certain laws).
The basic facts of the case involved a defendant who was charged with carrying an unregistered firearm and without a permit. Defendant challenged the constitutionality of Hawaii’s registration and permit requirements. And lost.
The Hawaii Supreme Court discusses its disagreement with the US Supreme Court’s recent re-interpretations of the Second Amendment but that appears to be dicta, as those disagreements are not material to the outcome. Here is the most relevant Second Amendment discussion from the opinion:
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 selfdefense.”); 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).
It speaks to Hawaii’s unique legal history. It’s the only state that was previously a sovereign kingdom. After annexation, Hawaii’s territorial and subsequent state constitution and laws incorporated many legal concepts and traditions from the Hawaiian Kingdom. Concepts like “Aloha” are much more than just cute touristy expressions to the people of Hawaii; they are deeply held cultural beliefs that are ingrained in the State’s laws and history.
As for the reference to The Wire, courts often make cultural and media references in their opinions to illustrate points. See here, for example:
This was the SCOTUS ruling with that crap about “laws with a basis in history and culture of US,” right? Seems like the Hawaiian court is just following SCOTUS logic on the subject.
Aloha spirit notwithstanding, things can get ugly there, just like everywhere else. And as income disparity widens, the prospect of even more ugliness looms large. I can see the incentive to take guns out of the equation.
“When C.K. replied that he owned the house, Alo-Kaonohi dragged his index finger along C.K.’s jaw and told him, “Your skin is the wrong f***** color.” Aki then picked up a roofing shovel and handed it to Alo-Kaonohi, who struck C.K. in the head with it, opening up a bloody wound on the back of C.K.’s head.”*
In addition to having one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation, Hawaii has the first or second lowest gun death rate in the country. It also has some of the strictest firearm laws. Pretty good case study on the effectiveness of gun regulation in jurisdiction less subject to unlawful importation from surrounding jurisdictions with lax regulations.