Liberal Forum

This is so brutal in its honesty and thorough in its evisceration of the absolute sham at the heart of Bruen, and Heller, that I'm gonna have make the Hysterians eat the whole thing...

Hawaii Rightly Rejects Supreme Court’s Gun Nonsense 

In a scathing takedown, the state's highest court declared “there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

HIT IT TOM!

https://youtu.be/iYuldgIOelY?si=wpZ3MP6iCVkJwq6_

 
 

Blue states are not generally known for attacking the federal government or running rogue programs in defiance of federal law. After all, that’s the business of Texas. But as six Republicans on the US Supreme Court increasingly arrogate to their bloc the power to make national law, frustration in blue states is mounting. Last week in Hawaii, it flowed like lava from an angry volcano.

 Just one day before a sympathetic Supreme Court heard the [url=chrome-extension://bdfcnmeidppjeaggnmidamkiddifkdib/viewer.html?file=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 9_feah.pdf]case[/url] of an insurrectionist who wants to be president, the highest state court in Hawaii declared that it really, truly, is sick and tired of the Supreme Court’s nonsense. In a unanimous decision handed down Feb. 7, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that it has no obligation to treat the high court in the nation’s capital with deference; it couldn’t even summon basic respect. The state court reached that end point, fittingly, in a case concerning what it derisively called “the Second Amendment’s brand-new right to bear arms in public for self-defense.”

ibid.


Ouch!

"brand new"?

Will someone pick Free Ride up off the floor....

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:07 am

This is so brutal in its honesty and thorough in its evisceration of the absolute sham at the heart of Bruen, and Heller, that I'm gonna have make the Hysterians eat the whole thing...

Hawaii Rightly Rejects Supreme Court’s Gun Nonsense 

In a scathing takedown, the state's highest court declared “there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

HIT IT TOM!

https://youtu.be/iYuldgIOelY?si=wpZ3MP6iCVkJwq6_

Irrelevant.  The Supreme Court of the United States has said otherwise. District of Columbia v. Heller
 

That brand-new right was created by the US Supreme Court in 2022, courtesy of Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen . Thomas’ opinion was based, in turn, on the brand-new individual right to gun possession created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 decision in Heller v District of Columbia, a mere 219 years after the constitution came into effect.

“Conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution,” [url=chrome-extension://bdfcnmeidppjeaggnmidamkiddifkdib/viewer.html?file=https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-conte ... 000561.pdf]wrote [/url]Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins.“In Hawaiʻi, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

 In denying a resident’s claim that he had a constitutional right, under Bruen, to carry a firearm even though he lacked a state permit, Hawaii declared Bruen null and void in the Aloha State. What makes the rebuke especially pointed, however, is that Hawaii’s constitution mimics the language of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. In effect, the Hawaii court ruled that the US Supreme Court distorted and corrupted the Second Amendment, and Hawaii refuses to take the higher court’s hackishness seriously.

ibid.

Gosh, Suave.....that's exactly the unambiguous stand you've consistently taken.....

 
 

Skans » 15 Feb 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:12 am

Irrelevant.  The Supreme Court of the United States has said otherwise. District of Columbia v. Heller

Don't sweat it, Heller gets its *** raped too..

The US Supreme Court invited this display of open contempt. Scalia and Thomas mumbled their way around awkward language such as “well-regulated militia” and utterly subverted the government’s prudential obligation to maintain public safety. Instead, the two conservative judges staked their claims on “history and tradition,” arguing that whatever worked for White guys bearing muskets in the 18th century was good enough for the kids getting murdered by semi-automatics in the 21st century.

 Unfortunately, historians keep making a mockery of the justices’ amateur – and highly selective – claims on the history and tradition of gun rights. The rulings were erected on shaky intellectual ground; additional scholarship keeps eroding their foundations.

 “The great irony is that a court that invokes history has repeatedly demonstrated a very poor grasp of history and no appreciation of their own place in history,” said Fordham University historian Saul Cornell, an expert on the history of American gun regulation.

 The US Supreme Court “distorts and cherry-picks historical evidence. It shrinks, alters, and discards historical facts that don’t fit,” the scathing opinion by the Hawaii high court states. “History by historians quickly debunked Heller’s history.”


ibid.


b...b...b...b...but Antonin was present at the carving of the stone tablets!

 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:13 am

That brand-new right was created by the US Supreme Court in 2022, courtesy of Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen . Thomas’ opinion was based, in turn, on the brand-new individual right to gun possession created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 decision in Heller v District of Columbia, a mere 219 years after the constitution came into effect.

“Conventional interpretive modalities and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaiʻi Constitution,” [url=chrome-extension://bdfcnmeidppjeaggnmidamkiddifkdib/viewer.html?file=https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-conte ... 000561.pdf]wrote [/url]Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins.“In Hawaiʻi, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

 In denying a resident’s claim that he had a constitutional right, under Bruen, to carry a firearm even though he lacked a state permit, Hawaii declared Bruen null and void in the Aloha State. What makes the rebuke especially pointed, however, is that Hawaii’s constitution mimics the language of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. In effect, the Hawaii court ruled that the US Supreme Court distorted and corrupted the Second Amendment, and Hawaii refuses to take the higher court’s hackishness seriously.

ibid.

Gosh, Suave.....that's exactly the unambiguous stand you've consistently taken.....

So, why don't you come right out honestly and admit that you want our 2nd Amendment repealed?
 

OH. SNAP!

The purpose of the Hawaii opinion, however, is not merely to shame the passengers of the constitutional clown car in Washington. It’s to declare war on the chaos that they enable. “The United States Supreme Court disables the states’ responsibility to protect public safety, reduce gun violence, and safeguard peaceful public movement,” the opinion states. “A government by the people works. Hawaiʻi’s legislative branch has passed sensible firearms laws. And Hawaiʻi’s executive branch has enforced those laws. The most recent available data from the Centers for Disease Control shows that Hawaiʻi has the nation’s second-lowest rate of gun deaths per year.”


"constitutional clown car"?????!!!!?????

Mercy!




 

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:14 am

Don't sweat it, Heller gets its *** raped too..

Again, you lose. 

Suggestion.  Go play with your D(umb) U(underground) friends.  https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forums  They are stupid enough for you to actually have a chance.
 

This is why some opinion pieces are not only worth reading, but sharing...


The US Supreme Court is perhaps best understood as an old-school ward heeler who dresses Christmas turkeys for the neighborhood partisans in highfalutin words. The court’s Republican bloc rewarded the party’s faithful anti-abortion voters with the overturn of Roe v Wade. For GOP donors, the bloc delivers exemptions from regulations enacted by duly elected government officials. Party gun fanatics receive the manifest destiny of gun culture spreading coast to coast, fueling fear and gun purchases and murder and gun purchases and suicide and gun purchases and accidental shootings and gun purchases.

 It's anybody’s guess how long this game, under the guise of “originalism” or “textualism” or “history and tradition” or perhaps other interesting words with pliable meanings, can go on. For its part, Hawaii’s Supreme Court seems to be finished playing. Partisans of slapdash history or other Republican bloc causes will have to resort to federal court from now on. They can still claim a Scalia turkey there.

ibid.

the corpulent altar boy under whose buttocks Antonin was smothered will surely be surfacing soon with a memoir....
 

Only two ammosexuals in the hizzy?

Who knew?
 

7 - Zip, yo...

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:44 am

Only two ammosexuals in the hizzy?

Who knew?
 

 

No need for a hizzy.  The writer of your opinion piece, who is speaking about "a brand new right" is not aware of what the Court really did.  Heller doesn't mean you can automatically, with no regulation, buy a firearm, and walk around with it.  If that was the case you would be able to do it in all 50 states. 

Right now only 27 states (more than half for you math geniuses) allow constitutional/permitless carry.  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resour ... estricted/

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:45 am

7 - Zip, yo...

Thank god for states like NH.

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:53 am

No need for a hizzy.  The writer of your opinion piece, who is speaking about "a brand new right" is not aware of what the Court really did.  Heller doesn't mean you can automatically, with no regulation, buy a firearm, and walk around with it.  If that was the case you would be able to do it in all 50 states. 

Right now only 27 states (more than half for you math geniuses) allow constitutional/permitless carry.  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resour ... estricted/

And Virginia, where the Insurrectionists kept their "ready response" arsenal of weapons on Jan 6...

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:53 am

No need for a hizzy.  The writer of your opinion piece, who is speaking about "a brand new right" is not aware of what the Court really did.  Heller doesn't mean you can automatically, with no regulation, buy a firearm, and walk around with it.  If that was the case you would be able to do it in all 50 states. 

Right now only 27 states (more than half for you math geniuses) allow constitutional/permitless carry.  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resour ... estricted/

Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:58 am

And Virginia, where the Insurrectionists kept their "ready response" arsenal of weapons on Jan 6...

 

We don't have permitless/constitutional carry.  You can open carry in most places but you can't conceal without a permit.

I gave you the info so you can make informed points.  

R.Suave » 15 Feb 2024, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 9:59 am

Heller "established" an individual right to carry.....on the same kinds of specious grounds as Bruen.

 

And yet, 23 states do not have constitutional/permitless carry.

How can that be?  THat is rhetorical. 

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 10:09 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 10:09 am

And yet, 23 states do not have constitutional/permitless carry.

How can that be?  THat is rhetorical.

A) You'll soon forget you asked.

B) You won't stand behind it.....

Huey » 15 Feb 2024, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 10:08 am

We don't have permitless/constitutional carry.  You can open carry in most places but you can't conceal without a permit.

I gave you the info so you can make informed points.

I posted an established fact.