Were either of those kingdoms?
Well, California once had an Emperor.
Read my post. There is no real difference in this type of issue between a sovereign kingdom. vs a sovereign republic. And Hawaii was no longer a Kingdom when it joined the Union.
I read your post, which was a direct response to this:
And so?? My replay was “Well there is Texas and maybe even California as sovereign nations.”- is that not true? I dont understand your confusion here. Did you misread my post and think I was saying that those states were kingdoms?
Hawaii requires both a permit to acquire prior to (ETA: or at the time of) purchase and subsequent registration of the weapon.
Well, to be fair, Hawaii was a kingdom when the the U.S. forcefully annexed it between 1893 and 1898. It was essentially a violent overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by American business interests who were unhappy with the Queen’s proposed new constitution that would have weakened their power and influence. U.S. Marines stormed the Iolani Palace and arrested Queen Lili’uokalani.
Hawaii subsequently became a territory so, yes, technically it was no longer a kingdom when it became the 50th state in 1959. But its history is unique among U.S. states given it’s prior status as a sovereign kingdom and distinct culture, which figure prominently in Hawaiian jurisprudence.
Yeah, that would be pretty difficult given Hawaii is 2,500 miles from the closest state and there are no gas stations along the way, among other reasons.
Right, because the Kingdom had been overthrown. You make it sound like the dissolution of the Kingdom was the will of the native people. It was not.
ETA: eloquently ninja’ed by @Ulysses, who is doing a lovely job of correcting misapprehensions about Hawaiian history and culture in this thread. Thank you for that!
Ditto on the thanks.
As Dr Cox would say “wrong, wrong wrong wrong…” The Queen abrogated the Constitution, trying to bring back absolute monarchy, the taboo system, and was extremely racist- no non-natives, even those whites who had been born there, and whose parents had been born there- would have no rights, not even to own land. Her own Cabinet refused to support it. She was overthrown by Thurston & co, who was born in the island, and whose parents were born in the islands. The cabinet refused to proclaim martial law to support the Queen. Yes, US Marines were landed, but never entered or “stormed” the Palace nor arrested the Queen- they simply defended the US legation. They didnt fire a single shot. In fact the men who defended the Constitution and overthrew the Queen had one only shot fired- a policeman was wounded. The overthrow was totally non violent.
Cite? Does it require registration of guns owned before the laws? AFAIK, no states do that.
@CairoCarol and @Czarcasm: Mahalo!
I think you’re missing the point. This is a bit of a thread hijack, so rather than debate with you the merits of the coup d’état that overthrew a sovereign nation, I’ll say just that none of that changes the fact that the Hawaii Supreme Court frequently looks to the history of Hawaii, including its periods as a kingdom, to interpret Hawaii law. As a result, Hawaii law recognizes many rights and obligations that derived from the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii and were codified in law and the state constitution. Other examples include Native Hawaiian gathering rights on public and private lands and prohibition of private ownership of beaches.
The relevance to this thread topic is that’s why the Hawaii Supreme Court dove deeply into Hawaiian history and culture to interpret a provision of its state constitution.
Not sure I understand what you mean by “before the laws” but the relevant code section is Hawaii Revised Statute 134-2 and 134-3.
It is a bit of a hijack, yes, but the coup d’état was on the part of the Queen who unilaterally abrogated the Constitution.
From my reading this does not require post facto registration. In other words, if you owned the gun before the law was passed, you do not need to register it. It refers to new guns brought in or purchased.
Now I understand your question. Yes, I believe that’s correct.
ETA: This is not legal advice, just friendly discussion board chatter.
In fact I do not think any state requires that, except CA which does require ex post facto registration of 'assault weapons". I am pretty sure SCOTUS would strike such a law down.
The District court just struck down CA s law requiring background checks, etc for ammo purchases. Also CAs ban on 10+ round magazines was struck down… but there is a stay on that waiting for a Higher court to rule.
@Falchion I glossed over this part of your post earlier in my disagreement with your preceding sentence. In retrospect, I should have also noted agreement with this point. Indeed, I think the Hawaii Supreme Court dedicated a significant part of its opinion to distinguishing the Hawaii State Constitution’s equivalent language from the Second Amendment on the basis that (despite using the same verbiage), Hawaii’s history and traditions compel a different interpretation than that of the current SCOTUS.
In short, framers of the Hawaii State Constitution in the 1950’s did not not necessarily have in mind the same meaning as that of the current conservative SCOTUS majority the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, but that doesnt stand under a federal Court- SCOTUS- decision.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Of course it does.
Federal court interpretations of federal constitutional provisions don’t bind state court interpretations of state constitutional provisions.
The Hawaii court didn’t (as the thread falsely suggests) purport to reject the federal constitution. It interpreted a state law provision using an approach that is, apparently, acceptable in that state.
The Supremacy Clause is immaterial to a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own state’s constitution. This is basic legal analysis. Moreover, I encourage you to reread my first post to this thread and, even better, the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision, which cites federal case law in its application of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the facts of the case. Perhaps then you’ll understand that the Court’s holding is entirely consistent with federal constitutional jurisprudence.
ETA:
Ninja’d by @Falchion
When/if he appeals to the US Supreme court, then we will see. SCOTUS has struck down several gun controls laws that the state thought was perfectly legal.
Because it said they violated the federal constitution.
The federal government cannot tell a state it is misinterpreting its own constitution. That’s not its jurisdiction.
Now, if Hawaii passed a law that violates the federal interpretation of the 2nd amendment but does not violate the Hawaiian interpretation of the equivalent gun right clause, what happens?
The law might be challenged in state court and interpreted not to violate the state’s equivalent to the 2nd amendment language.
Then it might be challenged in federal court and struck down for violating federal law.
This would not be a case of the federal government overturning the state court’s ruling. It would be the federal government making a totally separate ruling on a totally separate case based on totally different constitutional text that happens to share language with the state’s constitution but comes from a different source, that being the federal constitution.
The feds are ruling about the 2nd amendment to the US constitution while the Hawaiians are ruling based on Article I section 17 of Hawaii’s constitution. Two different texts that happen to share language.