HAWAII LAWMAKERS REBUILDING MONARCHY WITHOUT SECOND AMENDMENT

by Michael Findlay, NSSF, July 12, 2024 

Hawaii might be the picture of paradise with swaying palm trees and sugar-sand beaches. Beyond the postcard-worthy landscapes, though, there’s a troubling trend by state officials to write Second Amendment freedoms out of the island state. In Hawaii, lawmakers are taking the approach that Second Amendment rights are a problem to be tamped down and not a freedom to celebrate.

It’s almost as if Hawaiian lawmakers are working to re-establish a kingdom in the island state, one where the U.S. Constitution is a suggestion and not the law of the land.

Hawaii’s Gov. Josh Green signed the law that bans the sale, ownership, possession or controlling of ammunition by adults under the age of 21. The bill, Senate Bill 2845, would essentially eliminate Second Amendment rights for adults in Hawaii who are vested in the full spectrum of their civil rights.

‘Public Good’

The law carves out exceptions for adults under 21 who are actively engaged in hunting or target shooting or are going to or from a place of hunting or target shooting. Missing from that exception, of course, is the critical and lawful use of firearms and ammunition for self-defense.

“So, we didn’t outlaw a child touching ammo, just the purchase part of it,” said state Sen. Glenn Wakai, who authored the bill. “Hard for you to manufacture a bullet, right? So if we could take that part out of the equation, then I think there’s still a public good there.”

If “public good” means eliminating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, then Hawaii’s doing a bang-up job.

“Free speech, free religion, living a peaceful life in freedom without a tyrannical government, what protects those rights is our Second Amendment,” said Hawaii state Rep. Diamond Garcia to media. “We the people have the power, and our weapons ensure that government will never be superior to us.”

He’s not alone in his criticism of what is clearly an unconstitutional law. The state Office of the Public Defender has stated the law is in conflict with the historical traditions of firearm regulations, especially given the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen holding. They’re right.

In written testimony earlier this year, the office argued that criminalizing possession or control of a firearm for anyone under 21 years of age “means that young people are categorically banned from carrying firearms for self-defense purposes,” according to media reports.

“This ban runs afoul with the Supreme Court’s decisions about the Second Amendment, making it ripe for challenge by the defense bar if prosecutors intend on using the statute and gun activists in the civil arena,” the prosecutor’s office stated.

Hawaii’s Second Amendment Angst

Proponents of the law argued it is in keeping with Hawaii’s law that prohibits the sale of all firearms to adults under 21 – setting up an age-based gun ban. That is just one of the many gun control laws that makes Hawaii one of the strictest when it comes to gun control. Hawaii requires mandatory training to purchase a firearm, a permit-to-purchase a handgun that includes fingerprints, a photograph and mental health release waivers. It also requires universal background checks, mandates a 14-20 day waiting period to take possession of a firearm after purchase, requires firearms be registered with the state and bans “assault pistols” and standard-capacity magazines.

Hawaii’s antipathy toward Second Amendment rights is hardly a surprise. It’s not just the state legislature of the governor’s office that feels that way. Hawaii’s Supreme Court essentially brushed off the Second Amendment and relegated it to a second-class right earlier this year.

Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled against Christopher Wilson, who claimed the state violated his Second Amendment rights after he was charged with carrying a loaded gun without a concealed weapons permit. The state Supreme Court ruled that Wilson couldn’t use the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen to argue his “constitutional right to protect himself” because he is not a “well-regulated militia” and he didn’t apply for the concealed carry permit.

‘Spirit of Aloha’

“When the Hawaiʻi Constitution was first ratified, courts throughout the nation’s history had always interpreted and applied the Second Amendment with the militia-centric view,” the court wrote. “This was what everyone thought.”

Except that’s not true. Jordan Boyd, writing for The Federalist, pointed out, “The first line of the Hawaii court’s firearm ruling acknowledges that ‘Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution’ in affirming ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’”

Further, The U.S. Supreme Court clarified that with the landmark 2008 Heller decision that affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, just as are the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” the court wrote. “The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

In that statement, Hawaii’s Supreme Court put the laws and traditions of Hawaii above that of those of the United States – the union of states to which it belongs. Oddly, to justify this, Hawaii’s Supreme Court didn’t rely on judicial precedent, but leaned on pop culture to the point of including a quote from the HBO series “The Wire.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution,” the justices wrote. ‘The thing about the old days, they the old days.’”

The old days – it seems to Hawaii’s courts, lawmakers and governor – is back to a time when Hawaii was ruled by a monarch and not by the U.S. Constitution.