Hawaii Court Directly Challenges Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Rulings

In a shocking decision handed down on Wednesday, Hawaii’s highest court openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of Second Amendment rights, citing the state’s unique “spirit of Aloha.” The opinion for the unanimous court, written by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, asserts that the Hawaiian Constitution does not protect the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The court’s stance directly challenges the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment.

The decision, which stems from the case of Christopher Wilson, arrested in 2017 for carrying an unregistered firearm without a permit, reflects a broader debate about the balance between public safety and individual rights. Wednesday’s opinion stated: “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”

In so doing, the Hawaii court rejected the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark cases such as 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. These cases affirmed the fundamental American constitutional right to carry firearms. However, Hawaii’s ruling emphasizes state sovereignty and the distinct cultural context of the islands, claiming that a one-size-fits-all approach to constitutional interpretation is not appropriate for them.

The ruling appears to be based on anything other than actual legal reasoning and reliance on authority, as it quotes HBO’s “The Wire” for its brazen claim of the power to disregard the Constitution: “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” The sentimental reliance on pop culture reflects the court’s stance that “contemporary society” should not be bound by the founding era’s understanding of the Constitution. The court argued that the right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, encompassing a right to freely and safely move in peace and tranquility.

Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez lauded the decision, stating, “This is a landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation.” She emphasized the role of licensing and registration in addressing gun violence, aligning with the court’s perspective that state-level regulations can contribute to public safety without infringing upon constitutional rights.

Adding to the complexities of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision is the broader context of federalism and the potential dangers posed to a democratic republic like the United States when a state challenges the authority of the federal Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

This defiance not only raises academic legal questions but also stirs concerns about the public’s faith in the cohesion and stability of the federal system. The Constitution is the supreme law in our nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations are generally accepted as final. When a state court openly rejects these interpretations, it can lead to nationwide fragmentation of legal standards.

Moreover, the Hawaii decision court could encourage other “blue states” to follow suit, selectively adhering to federal constitutional interpretations based on local preferences or political ideologies. Americans who believe in the rule of law and our constitution now look to the Supreme Court on appeal to address Hawaii’s bold move against the American system of self-governance.