Hawaii Supreme Court Says the ‘Spirit of Aloha’ Trumps the United States Constitution

The justices of Hawaii’s Supreme Court have ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is all wrong. Instead of following rulings in cases such as Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the HSC has instead asserted that Hawaii’s pre-US history along with something called the “Aloha Spirit” is what really reigns supreme.

Here’s a link to a great Twitter/X thread where fellow SNW writer Kostas Moros goes into detail in the case (Hawaii v. Wilson) on which the Hawaii Supreme Court based its…unique ruling . . .

If you read the ruling yourself, you’ll be forgiven for thinking it was actually written by anti-gun social media dead-enders, rather than by serious jurists who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Almost every disproven hoplophobic nonsense talking point you’ve ever read makes an appearance in the Hawaii court’s ruling, including assertions that there’s no individual right to keep and bear arms.

They’ve erased the right to carry firearms outside the home . . .

And claim that the right to “bear arms” only means to serve as a soldier . . .

I could have sworn that all of this is already settled law. What’s even more awkward is that the language of Hawaii’s own constitution, where gun rights are concerned, is identical to that of the US Constitution . . .

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Section 17.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

What’s even more bizarre was the Hawaiian independence tinge that colors the court’s anti-gun screed.

As a part of the United States, Hawaii is subject to federal law. What laws may have existed prior to the former Kingdom of Hawaii becoming part of the United States is entirely irrelevant, as are cultural emanations and penumbras like something the court refers to as the “Aloha Spirit” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the state’s constitution).

In the federal system, a state court doesn’t get to tell the US Supreme Court that they got an issue wrong and that the state’s unique culture supersedes federal law. That concept seems to be lost on the Hawaiian justices.

Once again, I encourage everybody to read Moros’s full thread. I won’t rehash it here as Kostas does a much better job of covering the ruling than I can, but the mistakes and the intentional malpractice of law here are blatant and numerous. It’s really just a complete dumpster fire of a ruling. Or as Moros notes, “The hackery is unprecedented. This is written by antigun twitter, basically.”

A Laughably Bad Ruling

The ironic aspect of this ruling is that in their futile display of defiance, the justices of Hawaii’s supreme court have probably assured that their ruling will go on to sink a number of other anti-gun laws all across the United States.

If this was just a bad ruling that at least pretended to comply with Bruen, SCOTUS might let it slide. But this one openly defies them and prior case law. The Hawaii court has made it pretty clear that they simply don’t care what SCOTUS has ruled, almost daring the high court to take the case.

As often happens, a meme explains it well . . .

The work that crafty anti-gunners in other usual suspect states have been putting in to undermine Bruen is now likely to be undone (faster than it otherwise would have). Such a blatantly and intentionally bad interpretation of the law is something that the court virtually has to answer, and it gives them a lot of room to rule more broadly on the issue, if they so choose.

In the end, the Hawaii court will likely wish that they had played a smarter game instead of letting the mask slip completely and putting all of their anti-gun cards on the table like this.

That having been said, this highlights the importance of the next election even more clearly. While I personally disapprove of many things Trump and Republicans think government can and should do, I’m a lot more afraid of seeing the US Supreme Court rubber stamp something this in the future.