This is false, of course.
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.