It is wholly another, however, for a court or government to flatly reject the law of the land. Doing so invites anarchy, something that no democratic society can long withstand.
Take the recent instance of the Hawaii Supreme Court. Justices in the island state somehow reasoned that the Second Amendment and a U.S. Supreme Court decision simply do not apply to its citizens. They arbitrarily cast aside the Constitution and federal law simply for, as they stated, the “Spirit of Aloha.”
Just to refresh recent history, this is a brief summary of the Supreme Court’s clear ruling in 2022’s landmark New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
The case brought before jurists concerned the Empire State’s long-standing policy of requiring that applicants for concealed carry gun licenses show the state “proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of the home. This made it one of six “may issue” entities along with the District of Columbia.
The correct terminology for that policy should be “may not issue.” Without a clear and specifically demonstrable reason for self-defense, officials were free to reject applications for concealed carry — and they usually did.
But justices stepped in to right this wrong.
The Supreme Court by a 6-3 margin rejected this scheme. This Constitution, it clearly asserted, guaranteed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon for self-defense outside of the home.
It does not get much clearer than that.
Now consider the case of Christopher Wilson. The hiker was enjoying a day in the West Maui Mountains on Dec. 7, 2017, when he ran afoul of local authorities. His crime? Possession of a 10mm handgun and ammunition without a permit.
After the monumental Bruen decision, Wilson’s lawyers moved to have his charges dismissed. They argued his Second Amendment rights were violated considering the high court ruling.
A lower court agreed and granted the motion, but Hawaii officials appealed on the grounds that Wilson violated state law by not applying for a carry permit.
The Hawaii Supreme Court then inexplicably decided to mix culture and history with their ruling — completely tossing out the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court. Justices decided that due to its long history as an independent nation, the Second Amendment did not apply to Hawaii.
They further reasoned that the muskets available in 1791 simply did not translate the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to modern firearms.
In other words, the state’s high court unilaterally dismissed its duty to follow the law of the land. Because of the history it enjoyed before becoming a state, it is free to chart its own course and ignore the Supreme Court.
This is not a respectable disagreement or simply a difference of opinion. Rather, it is open rebellion against U.S. law.
Justices incredibly wrote, “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.”
Further, Judge Todd Eddins in the majority opinion soundly cast aside the Second Amendment. “We reject Wilson’s constitutional challenges. Conventional interpretive modalities and [Hawaii’s] historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the [Hawaii] Constitution.”
Eddins then chastised the high court for Bruen, claiming it “snubs federalism principles.”
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling is an egregious affront to the Constitution and begs for an appeal to the highest court in the land.
