Why courts are not the final arbiter of what the Constitution means

[SmarterthanYou]

Hawaii Supreme Court Rejects Major Second Amendment Rulings in New Gun-Carry Decision

The Aloha State’s highest court upheld a man’s gun-carry conviction on Wednesday after rejecting landmark decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Hawaii’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that found charges leveled against Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun without a permit violated his rights. Instead, the court ruled its state constitution provides no gun-rights protections whatsoever. That’s despite it including a provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms identical to the one in the federal Constitution.

“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Hawaiian court wrote in Hawaii v. Wilson. “We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I guess the armed vigilante right wing mutants are our best bet as the final arbiter on these subjects.

SmarterthanEwe is either stupid or insane, but both is probably the safest bet.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I guess the armed vigilante right wing mutants are our best bet as the final arbiter on these subjects.

SmarterthanEwe is either stupid or insane, but both is probably the safest bet.

well, at least we know you're not capable of critical thinking, or at the very least, comprehending rather simple topics. you'd rather continue the idiot partisan finger pointing that makes you look totally ignorant. good job.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

I'm tired of the SC rewriting the constitution and then calling it a new interpretation. If you want to change the C, you have to go thru the amending process.

 

[Into the Night]

Every state has different rules on how to run the election. Even within one state, each county has it own standards.

This particular question he asks (and started yet another kiddie pool thread to try to censor again) shows nothing more than someone that has never read the Constitution or any State constitution.
His answer is there, but he refuses these documents.

 

[Into the Night]

Hawaii Supreme Court Rejects Major Second Amendment Rulings in New Gun-Carry Decision

The Aloha State’s highest court upheld a man’s gun-carry conviction on Wednesday after rejecting landmark decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Hawaii’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that found charges leveled against Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun without a permit violated his rights. Instead, the court ruled its state constitution provides no gun-rights protections whatsoever. That’s despite it including a provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms identical to the one in the federal Constitution.

“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Hawaiian court wrote in Hawaii v. Wilson. “We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

So Hawaii has left the Union. It no longer honors the Constitution of the United States (2nd amendment) nor it's own State constitution (Article I, $17).

This reduces the number of States left in the Union to 46.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess the armed vigilante right wing mutants are our best bet as the final arbiter on these subjects.

SmarterthanEwe is either stupid or insane, but both is probably the safest bet.

*yawn*. Mantra 1d again, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm tired of the SC rewriting the constitution and then calling it a new interpretation. If you want to change the C, you have to go thru the amending process.

Agreed.
In this case, however, it's the Hawaiian Supreme Court that broke the law.