Is this Hawaii 5-NO? You may wonder that all five Aloha Supreme Court justices are saying no to gun rights. That's right: We're constantly hearing that President Trump is a threat to Democracy™ and that he is a threat to “ignoring court decisions.” Ironically, however, it was the leftists of Hawaii's topcoat who acted like kings and queens.
Additionally, the court cited the “spirit of Aloha,” a television program line, and the alleged obsolescence of “the understanding of the Constitution of the Founding Era” to justify its decision.
The Hawaiian court opinion was actually published last year. However, American thinkers drew a lot of attention last Friday when they wrote that the Hawaii Supreme Court was writing it.
It threw decades of Supreme Court precedent in a ruling that it would not recognize the state's constitutional rights to carry firearms.
The Supreme Court of Aloha has defied the decision of the Second Amended Supreme Court of Three Landmarks, declaring that the U.S. Supreme Court will “visit history with hand to create its own rules.”
Of course, that's exactly what the Hawaii Supreme Court did with its discovery.
The Aloha State Court decision overturned a lower court decision that dismissed charges against Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun that was not registered with the state, claiming that Wilson correctly violated his Second Amendment rights.
Incredibly, the court's ruling stated that “the traditional interpretive modalities and the historical tradition of Hawaii's firearms regulations eliminate the right of individuals to maintain and endure weapons.” The court further stated that it refused to understand the “establishment era” of the constitution and refused to cite the lines of the cable television series The Wire.
“Traditional interpretive modalities?”
Pseudo 30
Now, the left has recently become a complete fantasy, openly citing fictional works as policy guides. An impressive recent example was a BBC interviewer who called the counterfactual show a “documentary.” She even implied that seeing it was a necessary qualification to discuss “male violence.”
And the Hawaii Supreme Court (HSC) is not so sophisticated. Ah, you can challenge the “theory of establishment” while opposing directions based on the federal constitution. (This is a rationalization of justice that applies the Bill of Rights to the state.) Except for one thing:
Hawaii's constitution reflects the federal constitution on gun rights.
HSC therefore plays the Humpty Dumpty and says, “meaning that I mean what I choose. As the second sentence of that opinion states, “We read those (second amendments) in a different way than the current U.S. Supreme Court.”
“Good Ideaism” – No facts
The HSC decision reflects judicial misconduct that I called “good ideaism.” This is the practice of judges playing legislators (or activists), not based on the constitution, but on rules based on whether they fantasize about the proposals with good ideas.
For example, HSC boasts that their state has the “second lowest gun death rate of the year.” This turns out to be “the government of the people working”, ergo, constitution and hell.
But as I explained, there is actually no correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower homicide rates. In fact, much of Hawaii's low murder (and gun death) rates are attributed to demographics. The state's largest racial group is Asians (nearly 40% of the population). And Asian Americans generally have a very low percentage of Crime Commissions.
Furthermore, excluding suicide (not HSC) from statistics reveals even more issues. Hawaii is still ranked 9th. However, six of the eight states with even lower firearm mortality rates have more generous gun control laws. Why is New Hampshire, the state with the lowest firearm mortality rate, has the fourth most tolerant gun law in the country.
Aloha spirit?
Then there's the interesting issue of “Aloha Spirit.” Tourists, including greenbacks, are certainly welcomed with it, but pre-European contact Hawaii illustrated anything. Not only was brutal human sacrifices taken place there, but the war was frequent and savage. There's also a kicker here. It was King Kamehameha who ultimately united the Hawaiian islands through conquest in 1810.
And he was able to do so because he adopted Western weapons, the guns (and more).
Yes, aloha, hey.
(By the way, Christian missionaries were contributing to the elimination of human sacrifices in Hawaii.)
More dangerous than any gun: “Live” constitution
However, the HSC's most unintelligent trespassing is the concept that the constitution can be interpreted as “at times.” As Justice wrote,
It is pointless for modern society to pledge loyalty to understanding culture, reality, laws and constitutions of the founding era.
The HSC also defined “scotus “enves the right to lay weapons in amber, and the right to freeze when muskets and militias define self-defense.” (Yes, and when moving their lips and newspapers, they defined “speech.”
In fact, the Constitution is not frozen in time – it is frozen by law.
Or should it be.
The overall point of having a constitution is to enshrine (hopefully) eternal principles in law. In that way, it offers a firewall against the temporary taste that creates mob determined whims, tyranny of every time. And what if some principles are not eternal? What if they are really responsible?
That is the purpose of the revising process. It is a legitimate way to change the constitution of a federal or state. Clearly, Hawaiians do not consider it appropriate to amend the correct gun provisions in the state constitution.
HSC rejects the founder and past in honor of the “times.” But in the times, don't say anything. The judges do so, and they are simply impose their prejudices from the bench very illegally. They act as judicial olive heads.
Speaking of the spirit of the times, there is a reason why these judges rule the way they do. Relativism infects their thoughts. And if so, shooting in the mouth is much more dangerous than firing a gun.
