Opinion: The Aloha Spirit (of revoking your Constitutional Rights)
Hawai’i’s Attorney General states that the 2nd Amendment is null and void on the Islands… Wait, what?
(8 min read)
On February 8th, 2024, Hawai’i AG Anne Lopez released a document to her constituents which declared in so many words that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution no longer applies to the Islands. Don’t take my word for it, read the letter directly from the Governor’s newsroom site.
Put forth under the premise of gun safety and lowering gun violence, the letter states that, quote:
“...the Hawai’i Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense.”
And the Hawai’i Supreme Court appeal which spurred this letter reads:
“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons... ”
Let’s put this to rest real quick, as the Hawaiian Constitution DOES in fact include a word-for-word copy of the 2nd Amendment. Article 1 Section 17 of the Hawai’i Constitution states clearly:
“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.”
So in the first three paragraphs, this new order by AG Lopez not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but also the State’s own Constitution.
The AG was quick to note this, however, and argued that the plain text does not explicitly allow public carry (open carry or concealed carry; any form of transporting a loaded and ready firearm on ones person for the express purposes of defense of life).
In an article here I discuss why the 2nd Amendment’s plain text presumptively allows public carry, as “to keep and to bear” is the phraesology used for “to own and to use.” By extension, Hawai’i’s Constitution would also allow public carry as its verbage is identical to the U.S. Constitution. The Bruen Supreme Court decision also affirms this, and was a landmark case which battled New York State’s refusal to allow regular citizens to carry firearms for the express purpose of defense of life. I explain why this restriction is historically racist and classist here. It was actually the Bruen decision that compelled Hawai’i Gov. Josh Green in mid-2023 to implement Hawai’i as a “Shall Issue” state, where it had historically been a “May Issue” state.
So, where is all this coming from? How did Hawai’i just pull this out of the air that they think they’re above the United States Supreme Court and Constitution?
In the State Supreme Court case Hawai’i v. Wilson, defendant Christopher Wilson engaged in public carry without a permit. As per Hawaiian law, permitless carry is not legal and is a Class B felony. So in the above case, I understand the ruling. As the State of Hawai’i justly pointed out on Page 6 of the appeal, “unlike the Bruen plaintiffs, Wilson illegally possessed a handgun because he never tried to follow Hawai’i’s firearm registration and license-to-carry laws.” Mr. Wilson knew the law, disobeyed the law, and is facing the consequences thereof. Case closed, right?
Here’s the problem: this new statement by the AG on 2/8/24 doesn’t affect just the guilty defendant of a felony firearms crime; abridging the 2nd Amendment affects all Hawaiians.
I’ve included multiple links to the document in this article, so read the 52 pages for yourself; the case is quite an interesting read. But the kicker of it starts on the 2nd paragraph of the 51st page. Allow me to discuss Hawai’i’s opinion by rebuttal.
“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
Yes. My self defense guns are lethal weapons. I don’t want to fight someone trying to murder me or rape my wife (who is from Hawai’i) with a whistle and kind words. So, yes, the states I choose to live in permit me to carry deadly weapons during my day-to-day activities, and I see personal protection as a good thing.
“The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”
Hawai’i has long been restrictive on firearms, so their historical precedent would seem to support the idea of abolishing the 2A. But historical precedent alone does not allow politicians to revoke Natural Rights. Until a ratified amendment repeals the 2nd Amendment or Art. 1 Sect. 17, it remains a part of the Constitution that must be obeyed. Additionally, the historical precedent of being a May Issue state didn’t stop Gov. Green from passing Shall Issue legislation in 2023.
And the history of Hawai’i also includes us taking the islands through force and genocide after a gun-toting King Kamehameha conquered the islands for himself. If AG Lopez suggesting that Hawai’i refuse to acknowledge the Bill of Rights by seceding from the Union and returning the islands back to the natives, then at least that’s a reasonable goal. But for the time being, Hawai’i is a State in the Union, and cannot simply look at a Supreme Court decision and say, “We read this differently.” (Page 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1). This comes down to politicians disagreeing with the other side of the political aisle, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with safety or law.
Additionally, if we acknowledge that some peoples aims are deadly, who other than the People can combat them? The police? An organization of ill-funded, overworked, over-stressed, under-vetted men and women who have a historical precedent of brutality at the extremes? The government law enforcement officers who show up 3 minutes after the crime has already taken place? When your life is being threatened and seconds matter, police are only minutes away.
“The government’s interest in reducing firearms violence through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved peace and tranquility in Hawai’i. A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other Constitutional Rights.
Hawai’i’s culture is one of the most relaxed and chill states in the Union, proudly characterized by their “Aloha Spirit.” Their roads are calmer, the people are kinder, and everyone just has more of an air of being at peace. But if you think that this is due to their gun laws, direct your attention to California, Illinois, and New York: three states alone contributed to 21% of mass shootings in 2019, and those three states mirror Hawai’i’s gun laws. Hawai’i’s peace and tranquility is the result of a culture which respects one another, not of government rulers forcing people to get along or disarming them and making them helpless. But crazy people exist no matter what the culture is.
Per Location, Inc. on behalf of Neighborhood Scout, Hawai’i (with a population around 1.431 million) experiences around 3,700 violent crimes annually. A comparably populated state, New Hampshire (around 1.403 million) cuts that number in half by experiencing around 1,750 violent crimes per year. This includes all violent crime (rapes, stabbings, beatings, etc), not just gun crime. So with the reduction in violence, you would assume that New Hampshire has stricter gun legislation than the Aloha State, right?
At a glance, current gun laws in the Aloha State include a 10-round limit for magazines, a restriction on armor penetrating ammunition, permit requirement for gun ownership, permit requirement for open carry, permit requirement for concealed carry, Red Flag Law, “No Weapons” signs carrying the force of law, and a restriction on carry in State Parks, among other laws.
New Hampshire has no magazine capacity limit, institutes Constitutional carry, permitless open carry, carry in a vehicle without a license, no Red Flag Laws, and “No Weapons” signs do not carry the force of law, among other laws. Tl;dr… New Hampshire has less gun laws, and less violence.
There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under Article I, Section 17. So there is no Constitutional Right to carry a firearm in public for possible self defense.
There we go. Finally, on the penultimate page of the appeal, we get the truth:
Hawai’i doesn’t believe you have a right to self defense.
Closing
The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu where you can choose which Rights apply and which ones don’t. Either all of them do, or none of them do.
Here’s my question: If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to Hawai’i, does the 1st Amendment not apply, either? The plain text doesn’t mention the internet, so does Free Speech not apply to the internet? The 4th Amendment preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. But it doesn’t specify apartments; are apartments not protected under the 4th amendment? Splitting hairs and creating your own definitions is a very, VERY slippery slope. It’s a game anyone can play, but everyone loses.
But if Hawai’i did pass a law which abolished the 2nd Amendment on their soil, how would this law be enforced? In order to ensure that nobody can publicly carry guns, the possibility would have to be removed, otherwise citizens and criminals alike could just continue carrying guns regardless of the law (hence Hawai’i v. Wilson). So the only tenable option is a mass confiscation of every gun across the entire State.
I’ve been saying for years that gun control will never stop, that the end state of gun control is to mass confiscate every. single. firearm. This is evidence of that. Even when a State has every gun law under the sun and more, they still won’t stop in their pursuit to disarm you and make you completely helpless. They won’t stop until you are completely dependent on them, and in the palm of their hand, right where they want you.