IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th February 2024, 07:52 AM   #1
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Hawaii Supreme Court tells US Supreme Court to shove it on gun rights

https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...rt-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.

This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:01 AM   #2
ZiprHead
Graduate Poster
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 1,230
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...rt-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.
Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.


It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

IIDB is back, baby!
ZiprHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:12 AM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,524
Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.
Pretty sure Hercules is using it as a figure of speech, here.



Quote:
: rolleyes :

It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
The only thing* more idiotic than the Heller decision is saying a state court is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:12 AM   #4
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
Did you actually read the article? The word aloha is not mentioned at all.





It says their interpretation of the second amendment is what was used prior to the idiotic Heller decision.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rit-wire-quote

"The spirit of aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” added Justice Todd Eddins in an opinion. “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.”

There you go.

Aloha Spirit trumps the US Constitution.

Last edited by Hercules56; 10th February 2024 at 09:13 AM.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:14 AM   #5
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Pretty sure Hercules is using it as a figure of speech, here.




The only thing* more idiotic than the Heller decision is saying a state court is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:41 AM   #6
crescent
Philosopher
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,705
My guess is that Hawaii is looking to push the case up the the U.S. Supreme Court to get a more precise definition of what the Supremes think may be allowed.

Note that the guy was not charged with having a gun, he was only charged with having an unlicensed gun.

It looks like Hawaii requires that all guns be licensed (with exceptions for some shotguns and black powder/muzzle loaders). There are no requirements for what purpose one needs a gun for, although you must take a hunter/gun safety class first. If you want a gun, you can get one, so long as you register it and take the safety class.

In other words, the licensing requirement is probably complaint with the Heller decision, the laws in Hawaii are considerably more lenient than the laws in D.C. that were overturned by the Heller decision.

The Hawaii Supremes are not defying Heller they are instead saying that Heller is a stupid decision but that their laws appear to be compliant with it anyway.

I expect the right-wind media to ignore that last bit and froth and moan over this ad nauseum because they make good ratings with gullible patsies that way.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:43 AM   #7
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
The decision in Heller is being challenged, not ignored. The proper way to challenge a Supreme Court ruling is to raise a similar issue from lower level courts. Keep in mind that almost every Court decision overturns a previous one as the result of a challenge on a similar issue. Before Dobbs, Roe was law. Before Heller, Robertson was law. If you're going to argue that Supreme Court decisions are final and sacrosanct, you have to be specific about which ones.

Heller allows that states may impose "reasonable restrictions" on the possession of firearms within the broad allowance of personal possession. Explain how we cannot use the courts to define the contours of that allowance.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:53 AM   #8
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,896
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
Are there any right-wing hills that don’t make you say “I hate this hill and will die on it!”?
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:00 AM   #9
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 29,235
I remember there were a couple handbill-tossers advertising gun ranges right there in Waikiki. They seemed to be pretty popular with Japanese people (of which there are many, many in Hawaii.)
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:37 AM   #10
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,285
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
As much as I do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, its dangerous to ignore them. Pandora's box needs to stay closed.
And yet, SCOTUS has brought it upon themselves with their alt-right decisions that are out of the norm. Trump-McConnell-Federalist Society court packing is so extreme it was only a matter of time before states said they could no longer abide by SCOTUS' destructive rulings.

Can you blame HI for saying **** this, people walking around with AR15s or similar weapons slung over their shoulders is unacceptable? How is anyone to feel safe not knowing if one of these idiots might decide to start shooting people?

Yes the charge was no permit this time but in the ruling as was quoted above:
Quote:
“The spirit of aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” added Justice Todd Eddins in an opinion. “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.”
Enough is enough, SCOTUS is no longer a respected branch of government.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 10th February 2024 at 10:43 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:47 AM   #11
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,899
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I remember there were a couple handbill-tossers advertising gun ranges right there in Waikiki. They seemed to be pretty popular with Japanese people (of which there are many, many in Hawaii.)
It has been a long time since I went there, but the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club appears to be an operation set up to fleece tourists.

I was walking around Waikiki when I saw a poster and went in to take a look. It had short shooting lanes set up with small 22lr revolvers chained to the bench. Cost was about $1 per round. This was back when 22lr ammo cost 3 cents per cartridge.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 12:46 PM   #12
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And yet, SCOTUS has brought it upon themselves with their alt-right decisions that are out of the norm. Trump-McConnell-Federalist Society court packing is so extreme it was only a matter of time before states said they could no longer abide by SCOTUS' destructive rulings.

Can you blame HI for saying **** this, people walking around with AR15s or similar weapons slung over their shoulders is unacceptable? How is anyone to feel safe not knowing if one of these idiots might decide to start shooting people?

Yes the charge was no permit this time but in the ruling as was quoted above:


Enough is enough, SCOTUS is no longer a respected branch of government.
So which SCOTUS decisions do you think should be ignored?
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:03 PM   #13
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
So which SCOTUS decisions do you think should be ignored?
I think the Supreme Court should be ignored when it rules to permit federal border guards to remove barriers set up by Texas officials. Oh, wait, that wasn't me; that was the Attorney General of Texas.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:10 PM   #14
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I think the Supreme Court should be ignored when it rules to permit federal border guards to remove barriers set up by Texas officials. Oh, wait, that wasn't me; that was the Attorney General of Texas.
Another dangerous precedent, but less so than when a state supreme court literally says in their ruling "we dont care what the US Supreme Court says".

I hope this decision by the Hawaii supreme court is appealed, EVEN though I totally support the right of states to require permits for concealed carry, and I think so does the current US Supreme Court. Bruen never threw out permits, only the "good cause" requirement.

Last edited by Hercules56; 10th February 2024 at 01:13 PM.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:11 PM   #15
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 25,854
Hawaii had a kind of interesting take on the scope of state/federal authority when I visited. There was this whole subculture there that did things like made its own license plates and put them on cars and drove them around. Police kind of...left them alone. The details are momentarily escaping me but the colors were I think yellow, orange, and green, and had a set of crossed flags. I'll look it up later.

Anyway, they seem to very much support the idea of traditional Hawaiian culture trumping the USA's rules. Also, from memory, they weren't actually big on "aloha". They said that was more of a tourist thing. Maholo was actually a bigger deal, and they even had that on their orange road work signs.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 10th February 2024 at 01:12 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:24 PM   #16
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Another dangerous precedent, but less so than when a state supreme court literally says in their ruling "we dont care what the US Supreme Court says".

I hope this decision by the Hawaii supreme court is appealed...
So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?

Appealing decisions of state courts on federal questions that challenge existing Supreme Court rulings is exactly how the system was designed to operate. It's literally how you got Heller and literally how you got Dobbs.

Wow.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:49 PM   #17
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?

Appealing decisions of state courts on federal questions that challenge existing Supreme Court rulings is exactly how the system was designed to operate. It's literally how you got Heller and literally how you got Dobbs.

Wow.
Saying "we will not abide by a very recent SCOTUS ruling because it conflicts with our local values & heritage" is what's dangerous.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 01:59 PM   #18
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Saying "we will not abide by a very recent SCOTUS ruling because it conflicts with our local values & heritage" is what's dangerous.
In your view.

If the means by which they express that satisfaction is to hear and decide a case in court, following due process, in a manner that is reviewable and appealable to the Supreme Court, then that's how the system is designed to work. The sentence is mere rhetoric.

But you say that's less acceptable than the Texas attorney general just up and deciding on his own to disobey the Court ruling, having no authority to do so under the Constitution and following no due process.

Make it make sense.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 02:02 PM   #19
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In your view.

If the means by which they express that satisfaction is to hear and decide a case in court, following due process, in a manner that is reviewable and appealable to the Supreme Court, then that's how the system is designed to work. The sentence is mere rhetoric.

But you say that's less acceptable than the Texas attorney general just up and deciding on his own to disobey the Court ruling, having no authority to do so under the Constitution and following no due process.

Make it make sense.
OK, so you're saying as long as a rejection of a SCOTUS ruling is done through the judicial process, its ok?

What if immediately after Roe v Wade decision was handed down, Texas said "**** that, we aren't going to allow abortions", and the Texas Supreme Court agreed that Texas doesn't have to allow abortions and the US Supreme Court can go **** themselves and their unChristian values?
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 02:13 PM   #20
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
OK, so you're saying as long as a rejection of a SCOTUS ruling is done through the judicial process, its ok?
Yes. That's how the judiciary works. That's how it was designed to work.

Quote:
What if immediately after Roe v Wade decision was handed down, Texas said...
What they say is irrelevant. What they do matters.

What Hawaii did was mount a challenge to a Supreme Court case they felt disagreed with their state's values. They did so in the manner prescribed in the Constitution. That this action is accompanied by rhetoric you see as inflammatory is irrelevant.

In contrast, what the attorney general of Texas did was flagrantly disobey a standing ruling from the Supreme Court. His office does not give him the authority to do so, and his actions under color of law are not according to any process and are not reviewable.

But you say what Texas is doing is less dangerous. Explain how.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:20 PM   #21
Trausti
Muse
 
Trausti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
So in your estimation, it's less dangerous when a state attorney general unilaterally decides to disobey the Supreme Court than when a duly designated high court of a state challenges a Supreme Court ruling in the normal course of judicial procedure?
Texas did not disobey the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court simply vacated an injunction that stopped the feds from cutting wire put up by Texas. The order didn't stop Texas from putting up new wire.
Trausti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:22 PM   #22
Trausti
Muse
 
Trausti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes. That's how the judiciary works. That's how it was designed to work.
No. That's not how it works. The lower / state court is bound by the federal precedent. To challenge the law you appeal that decision on up. Otherwise, precedent does not exist. Often, if a court feels that the precedent is bad, it will say so in its opinion but nonetheless acknowledge that it is bound.

Last edited by Trausti; 10th February 2024 at 09:23 PM.
Trausti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 09:47 PM   #23
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
No. That's not how it works. The lower / state court is bound by the federal precedent. To challenge the law you appeal that decision on up. Otherwise, precedent does not exist. Often, if a court feels that the precedent is bad, it will say so in its opinion but nonetheless acknowledge that it is bound.
Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was. Their case is curious because they're looking at their state constitution, whose section on firearms is verbatim the 2nd Amendment. They argue they have an unfettered right to interpret their state constitution.

ETA: If you look at the history of gun control legislation, controlling precedent prior to Heller was U.S. v. Miller (1939). In Miller, the Court ruled decisively that firearm possession was governed by the principles of a militia (i.e., the collective-rights model), and that no individual right to own a gun existed outside that context. The appeals court in Heller flatly ruled that an individual right to own a gun existed, arguing straight across the bow of Miller. The Supreme Court affirmed, but the point remained that a lower court advanced the argument that the Supreme Court previously had erred as a matter of law.

In contrast, Dobbs was a more straightforward path. The Mississippi court followed precedent and struck down the state law as unconstitutional under Roe and Casey. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, also following precedent.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.

Last edited by JayUtah; 10th February 2024 at 10:26 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:09 PM   #24
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
Texas did not disobey the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court simply vacated an injunction that stopped the feds from cutting wire put up by Texas. The order didn't stop Texas from putting up new wire.
Yes, I agree that's a more accurate picture of the facts. But in my opinion it's a formulaic argument that doesn't really address the notion of defiance or obedience to the Supreme Court. If the argument is presented that it is dangerous (other than legally) to defy the Court, then a formulaic obedience to the letter of the Court's decision while continuing to defy its spirit makes that argument less convincing to me.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:11 PM   #25
Trausti
Muse
 
Trausti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was.
Well, I'll agree with that. The facts of the case are that the guy had a concealed gun and didn't bother to get a permit. So he couldn't challenge the constitutionality of the permit process. He was stuck arguing that the Hawaii state and federal constitutions gave him a right to have a gun in public. Supreme Court precedent still allows states to require a permit. So, ugh. And it is certainly proper for a state supreme court to interpret its state's constitution.
Trausti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 10:25 PM   #26
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
And it is certainly proper for a state supreme court to interpret its state's constitution.
Yes, but we'll have to see how this survives an application of the Supremacy Clause. It is worth emphasizing, however, that your statement on precedent is correct. When the Supreme Court has ruled on a federal question, all state courts must respect that as binding precedent when ruling on the same question.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2024, 11:24 PM   #27
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,069
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 07:48 AM   #28
Gulliver Foyle
Illuminator
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 3,247
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...rt-2024-02-08/

So basically, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that their tradition of "Aloha" supersedes the ruling of the US Supreme Court that American citizens have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms in public. That is their literal statement.

This is unprecedented and dangerous. Does this now mean that Alabama, Texas and Mississippi can allow racial discrimination because their faith in God and the Bible supersedes the Supreme Court's ruling on all men being equal and protected by the constitution?

I'm surprised any state court would make such a ruling, considering the pandora's box it shall open.

No, I don't think states will now be allowing racial discrimination and banning interracial marriage. But they now have a legal precedent to ban gay marriage and allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community..thanks to Hawaii.
No what was unprecedented and dangerous was the Heller decision of "the constitution does not mean what it says it means".
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo Factio Republicanus esse delendam
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 08:10 AM   #29
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
Here's the decision.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...2024hawaii.pdf

Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, it's sheer poetry. Consider :—
Quote:
The Second Amendment quelled alarm that the national government might disarm and disband state militias. Those militias could “oppose” a federal army, Madison wrote, and “would be able to repel the danger” of the federal government.

That’s what they were thinking about long ago. Not someone packing a musket to the wigmaker just in case.
But to get back to your point, there is quite a spirit in the opinion. I think I understand better what you're trying to say, for having read it.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 08:56 AM   #30
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
No what was unprecedented and dangerous was the Heller decision of "the constitution does not mean what it says it means".
This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.

Americans have the Constitutional right to defend their home and themselves in public using deadly force, including with a firearm.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:13 AM   #31
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 25,854
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
I grew up in Hawaii and you fine bunch of mainland haole's don't quite understand Aloha or the place. It's part of the United States-yes,.. but it really isn't, its better and distinct.
*indigenous peoples on the mainland make frantic warning hand gestures to Hans to stop it*
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:42 AM   #32
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.
It is about Heller because Heller is the decision you demand everyone must obey. Heller overturned 75 years of precedent and told an entire country worth of federal judges that they had been interpreting the clear language of Miller wrong all along.

Why don't you read the decision I linked above, which points out the legal and historical errors in Heller reasoning and tell me why that is wrong. And no, "Because it contradicts Heller" is not why.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:48 AM   #33
Gulliver Foyle
Illuminator
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 3,247
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
This isn't about Heller, but Heller was accurate and correct.

Americans have the Constitutional right to defend their home and themselves in public using deadly force, including with a firearm.
It's not correct because the constitution never imputed an unfettered right to own weapons of any kind. It gave a conditional right for citizens to have arms on their persons (bear arms) when carrying out their duties as part of the state or national armed forces (well regulated militia). The Heller ruling flies in the face of the clearly enunciated clauses in the second amendment no matter how loosely you interpret the wording.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo Factio Republicanus esse delendam
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:53 AM   #34
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It is about Heller because Heller is the decision you demand everyone must obey. Heller overturned 75 years of precedent and told an entire country worth of federal judges that they had been interpreting the clear language of Miller wrong all along.

Why don't you read the decision I linked above, which points out the legal and historical errors in Heller reasoning and tell me why that is wrong. And no, "Because it contradicts Heller" is not why.
I have read more than enough background into the Heller decision and the 2nd Amendment to understand why it was correct to decide what they did.

Some regulations and restrictions are legal, such as requiring permits, training, background checks, banning in court houses and schools. But blanket bans on possessing a gun at home for self defense and possessing concealed handguns in public goes against the clear historical intent of the 2A.

The Wikipedia article on the Heller decision gets into a lot of this.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:56 AM   #35
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I have read more than enough background...
Have you read the Hawaii decision?
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 10:08 AM   #36
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Have you read the Hawaii decision?
Yup.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 10:21 AM   #37
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,524
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Normally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for a state court on a federal question. However, if you read Hawaii's decision, the question presented was how much of a federal question it really was. Their case is curious because they're looking at their state constitution, whose section on firearms is verbatim the 2nd Amendment. They argue they have an unfettered right to interpret their state constitution.
I'm trying to figure out this Hawaiian loophole. If the Supreme Court rules that the the US constitution prohibits certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, how can it possibly matter whether a state court interprets their state's constitution to permit those restrictions? They're still bound by the US Constitution (as interpreted by Supreme Court rulings) to not impose those restrictions.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 10:27 AM   #38
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm trying to figure out this Hawaiian loophole. If the Supreme Court rules that the the US constitution prohibits certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, how can it possibly matter whether a state court interprets their state's constitution to permit those restrictions? They're still bound by the US Constitution (as interpreted by Supreme Court rulings) to not impose those restrictions.
Hawaii is clearly special, and not bound by white man rules.


Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 10:32 AM   #39
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,688
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Yup.

Tell us why its analysis of Heller is wrong.
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams
‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 10:47 AM   #40
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,508
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Tell us why its analysis of Heller is wrong.
That is not the topic of this thread.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.