link to the Case

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KDCuf1YrxAQQUmooE2e_0fWnKXReCv3/view

I will mostly be going over this thread discussing some of the more r-slurred points.

Background

in short, this guy was carrying a gun, without a license. Something legal in the majority of states (I think we are at 28 currently)

Why this case had to go to the Hawaii supreme court is because at the time the crime occurred, Hawaii had NEVER given a License to carry to anyone.

Why does that matter, enter two recent supreme court cases heller and Bruen

heller and Bruen

To understand why Hawaii is mad you need to understand what these two cases mean

addition from a user who I'm not sure wants to be @'ed but makes an excellent point.

To understand why Hawaii is mad you need to understand what these two cases mean

It think it's worth pointing out how absolutely outrageous it is for a Supreme Court judge to overthrow the concept of vertical stare decisis which that is the bedrock legal principle that even makes their Supreme Court "supreme".

If only a dramatard was on Hawaii's Second Circuit Court so they could release a ruling saying that the Hawaii Supreme Court's opinion "should be discarded altogether"

Heller:

• Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Bruen:

• New York's law was unconstitutional and that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

• When applying for a carry license before this, some states were "may issue" (you need to know the mayor to get a license), or "shall issue" (if you meet the standards to get a license, you get it). After this decision, all states are "shall issue".

Ok, now that I've bored you with too much background lets talk about the case, and how wild this case doc is.

1. "The thing about the old days, They the old day"

the court literally decides to quote the wire, as a reason they get to ban guns? it's a good show yes, but wasn't about a guy with a gun killing bad people? wasn't he breaking carry laws or was he a cop?

2. L- posting

"we never carried guns, and were colonized for it, and feel the need to continue to take Ls"

also, they did have weapons, but they were super gay because the people from hawaii were savages waiting for whites to save them.

3. now for a quick poetry slam

here is the law ?

This basically says don't be bad, and don't harass people on the side of the road, not really sure what we are reaching for here tbh?

4. the Vibes argument.

reminder that hawaii had super gay spears so deadly weapons were common in hawaii in pre colonial times. also weird that tons of places have a proliferation of guns but are still pretty chill.

5. this just me

at the time of this case, not a single person had received a CCW permit in Hawaii, so acting like saying gay people can get married and then just not giving out licenses

from anon user yet again:

A point regarding #5:

States retain the authority to require that individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public

Well, well, look at the progressives pulling out that conservative classic argument of "state's rights"!

I wonder what happens when states in the South declare they "retain the authority to require inviduals pass a background and credit check before voting" which was declared unconstituional by that pesky US Supreme Court beginning with the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections