Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
February 09, 2024
Hawaii SCOTUS makes bonkers claim the state's "Spirit of Aloha" overrides your right to own a firearm
In 1959, over 90 percent of Hawaiian voters approved the proposition that the territory should become a state. And when you petition to be a state, you don’t get to pick and choose what part of the constitution you like. It’s all or nothing. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. But lawmakers in Hawaii are too stupid to understand that itty part about America called the “Second Amendment.” They are too dumb to grasp what that means.
But let’s break it down for state officials, “shall not be infringed” supersedes the “Spirit of Aloha.”
On Wednesday, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision claiming guns interfered with the “Spirit of Aloha.”
The U.S. Supreme Court held in its 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision that citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense requires no demonstration of a “special need” like New York required for its unrestricted concealed-carry licenses. Before that, the highest court in the land found in its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision that DC could not ban handgun possession in the home because, under the Second Amendment, American civilians, not just military personnel, have the right to own firearms and use them for lawful self-defense.
Justices in the Hawaii court rejected both examples of the top court’s jurisprudence when they upheld a conviction for island resident Christopher Wilson, who was charged in 2017 after carrying a loaded gun without a concealed weapons permit.
The state court claimed Wilson could not use Bruen to argue his “constitutional right to protect himself” because he is not a “well-regulated militia” and he did not apply for a concealed carry weapons permit (CCW). The justices claimed that, under the 1968 political interpretation of Hawaii’s 1950 constitution, “the historical background of the Second Amendment indicates that the central concern in the right to bear arms was the right of the states to maintain a militia.”
Wow. These justices really just claimed that Americans don’t have a right to bear arms and that it’s really state officials who have that right. Wow. Pure evil.
A state constitution does not trump the United States Constitution. It does not work that way.
“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 it was not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment describes an individual right to possess firearms, not just a military one.
This is logically equivalent to a state deciding to trash the right to assemble. Or that a warrant is no longer required for law enforcement to enter private homes. It’s a conditionally protected right and a state cannot take that away.
Our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment after their freedom from the most powerful government in the world at that time. It was not because they enjoyed hunting and it was not because someone tried to trespass on their property. The Second Amendment is meant to prevent the government from restricting that right due to the fact it's not their right to take.
If we don't need a permit to practice religion, why on earth do we need it to carry a firearm? Something does not seem to be adding up here if you ask me.
These 4 Things Caused The Maui Wildfires... | Louder With Crowderwww.youtube.com