Some Whackadoodle Civics: State v Wilson
I know that this story is going to tick a few people off, but it makes me so dang proud of the State where I live. Happy President's Day.
News outlets around the country carried the story. Which is surprising because Hawaiʻi’s new is normally ignored by main stream media.
On February 7, 2024, the Hawaiʻi State Supreme Court dared to question a Supreme Court Decision; and instead upheld the laws of the State it serves.
It began when a man named Christopher Wilson was charged with offenses related to carrying a firearm and ammunition in public without the appropriate license in Hawaiʻi. Mr. Wilson challenged the constitutionality of the relevant Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes arguing that these laws violated his rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed the charges, agreeing with Wilson's argument. The State appealed the dismissal.
Long story short, on February 7, 2024, the Hawaiʻi State Supreme Court upheld the charges against Mr. Wilson in a blistering 53 page ruling in which they called into question the United States Supreme Court’s 2008 majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that 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.
So before anyone gets mad, let’s get some context:
Since the charges relate to how one should interpret the Second Amendment of the United States constitution, perhaps we should begin there.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is just one sentence, and it simply reads:
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.
Simple enough.
Congress debated for months about the need for and wording of this particular amendment. Their chief concern seems to have been a reluctance to have a standing army during times of peace. They preferred the idea of a militia that could be called up at times of need. The website constitution.congress.gov has a really wonderful article about these first debates, including James Madison’s first draft of the amendment, which reads:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Source: Historical Background on Second Amendment | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
A second article on the site explains all the Jurisprudence with regards to the Second Amendment that occurred between it’s ratification and 2008. It includes this disturbing passage:
Another passing reference to the Second Amendment in a pre-Civil War case came in the infamous and now-superseded Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In holding that Black Americans were not citizens of the United States, the majority opinion in Dred Scott listed among the implications of an alternative conclusion that citizenship “would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private…to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Source: Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Finally we come to 2008, and the United States Supreme Court’s somewhat infamous five to four decision in District of Columbia v Heller.
One June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller held, in a 5 to 4 ruling, the following:
PRIMARY HOLDING
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.
FACTS
In a rather artificially generated lawsuit, Robert Levy at the Cato Institute selected six plaintiffs for a claim that would test the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The group included a range of age groups, an even balance in genders, and two African-Americans. The named plaintiff, Dick Heller, was a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia who was not allowed to have a gun at home despite being able to use it at work. Like the other plaintiffs, he lived in an area with high drug use and crime activity. The critical difference between Heller and the other plaintiffs was that he had applied for a handgun permit and been refused. This meant that he had standing to sue, whereas the others did not. They dropped out of the case in the early stages.
The District of Columbia had enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act in 1975, which prohibited individual ownership of handguns in most cases except those possessed by current or former law enforcement officers. The six plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of this provision, as well as another provision of the law that required any guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. While their case was dismissed by the federal district court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding that Heller had standing. The court defined handguns as arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and held that the Amendment extends to rights beyond participating in the militia. Keeping guns unloaded and disassembled also was impermissible because it hindered individuals in exercising the right of self-defense.You can read the entire ruling, as well as the two dissenting opinions, here.
Source: supreme.justia.com
And now we come to the reason for this article. Hawaiʻi’s State’s Supreme Court’s February 4, 2024, State v Wilson decision, which picks apart the District of Columbia v Heller ruling, and identifies many of the inconsistencies and deliberate exclusions of jurisprudence used to “discover” an “individual right to bear arms” in the Second Amendment after it had been “hidden” for over two hundred years of American history. Let’s take a look…
Justia Opinion Summary
Christopher Wilson was charged with offenses related to carrying a firearm and ammunition in public without the appropriate license in Hawaiʻi. In response, Wilson challenged the constitutionality of the relevant Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-25 (2011) (pistol or revolver) and § 134-27 (2011) (ammunition), arguing that these laws violated his rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its equivalent in the Hawaiʻi constitution, article I, section 17. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed the charges, agreeing with Wilson's argument. The State appealed the dismissal.
The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi concluded that Wilson was only entitled to challenge the constitutionality of the laws he was charged with violating. As such, Wilson could challenge HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27, but not HRS § 134-9, which pertains to licenses to carry firearms and which Wilson had not attempted to comply with.
The court found that the text, purpose, and historical tradition of the Hawaiʻi Constitution do not support an individual right to carry firearms in public. The court reasoned that the language of article I, section 17, which mirrors the Second Amendment, ties the right to bear arms to the context of a well-regulated militia. It does not extend this right to non-militia purposes. The court also considered Hawaiʻi's history of strict weapons regulation and the intent of Hawaiʻi's framers.Based on these considerations, the court held that HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27 do not violate Wilson's right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court vacated the lower court's dismissal order and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.
You can read the full 53 page ruling here.
Source: law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court
I realize that most of you will not look at the entire ruling, so let me try to pare it down for you.
The Court spent the first part of the ruling explaining the history of the case against Wilson, as well as the reasons for the previous rulings that had brought the case before them.
One page nine, they begin their own ruling with the following:
“We hold that the text and purpose of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, do not support a constitutional right to carry deadly weapons in public.”
The Court then spends a number of pages providing evidence that explains and justifies their reasoning.
On page nineteen, the Court begins to take on the Heller decision, explaining why they believe that the Heller decision misinterpreted the original meaning of the Second Amendment. They provide reams of evidence supporting their opinion. They then go on to explain how they interpret the Second Amendment, again with reams of evidence supporting their opinion. They spend quite a bit of time going on about State’s Rights to create and enforce their own laws. They spend even more time explaining Hawaiʻi’s laws and history. They finally return to the Wilson case and unanimously affirmed that Wilson’s rights under the Second Amendment were not violated by the enforcement of Hawaiʻi’s gun protection laws, and they “vacate(d) the circuit court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 & 2 and remand(ed) to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.”
For those of you who would like to download the entire ruling, I have posted it below. Don’t like to download? You can read its entirety online at State v. Wilson :: 2024 :: Supreme Court of Hawaii Decisions :: Hawaii Case Law :: Hawaii Law :: US Law :: Justia.
I hope of few of you are nerds enough to want to do just that.
Why should you care?
Oh, I don’t know. It’s just that the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court took great pains to clearly explain and justify its decision in that 53 page unanimous ruling. Frankly, more care than the Supreme Court made in their 2008 Heller ruling. It’s as if the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court is expecting the United States Supreme Court to be reviewing it one day, and they wanted to make sure their arguments were solid enough to withstand the scrutiny and flack it would engender.
I personally want to say, “Mahalo nui iā ʻoe no kēia hoʻoholo.”