On Monday, December 9, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Second Amendment case that originated in Hawaii. The case was famous for asserting the ridiculous “spirit of Aloha” defense in its attack on gun rights. The Supreme Court did, however, weigh in with some important observations on Hawaii’s anti-Second Amendment posture.
The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a written statement from Chief Justice Thomas, penned jointly with Justice Alito, and a separate statement from Justice Gorsuch, in the case of Hawaii v. Christopher L. Wilson.
See our previous coverage on this case here. Readers may remember the ridiculous defense Hawaii gave in upholding its anti-gun laws:
The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.
In that case, Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins also wrote:
We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state Constitutional right to carry a firearm in public … The history of the Hawaii resident Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.
Ironically, in May, the Hawaii Governor signed HB 2342 into law, making it immediately legal to openly carry weapons that were formerly banned in public, including switchblades and butterfly knives. Shortly thereafter, self-defense advocates were seen on social media walking around with spears, clubs, and large knives.
Today’s Supreme Court denial wasn’t based on the merits of the case, but simply its interlocutory nature. The 11-page document excoriated Hawaii for its failure to adhere to Supreme Court precedent and gave some indication of the Justices’ annoyance with its ruling:
The decision below is the latest example of a lower court ‘fail[ing] to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated Constitutional right.’
The Supreme Court also acknowledged the correct ruling of the lower Circuit Court:
The Circuit Court recognized that Hawaii’s near-total restrictions on public carry could not be squared with Bruen, and it accordingly held that prosecuting Wilson for unlicensed carry would violate the Second Amendment and the parallel provision in Article I, §17, of the Hawaii Constitution.
The Supreme Court again pointed Hawaii back to the Bruen doctrine with a reprimand that they are not following their duty:
Had the Hawaii Supreme Court followed its duty to consider the merits of Wilson’s defense, the licensing scheme’s unconstitutionality should have been apparent. We have made clear that the Second Amendment is a right ‘guaranteed to all Americans,’ whose exercise cannot be conditioned on a showing of ‘special need.’
Further illustrating the belligerent position of the Hawaii Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court pointed out the recent change in law in Hawaii to reflect a new licensing statute:
The Hawaii regime’s obvious unconstitutionality may be why the Hawaii Legislature has since amended the State’s licensing statute to create a ‘shall issue’ regime, at least for concealed carry.
And in a rare case of transparent solidarity with the defendant, the Justices penned this observation:
In an appropriate case, however, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes. Perhaps Wilson himself will present that case, should he file a post-trial petition for certiorari.
Although the Supreme Court didn’t take this Second Amendment case, there are many more that are nearly ripe for consideration, and this letter indicates more clearly than ever the Court’s growing annoyance with lower courts defying precedent.
