Hawaii isn't interested in our Constitution

a reply to: network dude

America is falling apart at it's seams ..........

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
a reply to: network dude

America is falling apart at it's seams ..........

The average lifespan of civilizations is around 300 years. So we are in the middle of the decline with only about 100 years left, if history teaches us anything.
energyskeptic.com...

Some predict: " Catabolic (a destructive form of capitalism) capitalism will profit from scarcity, crisis, disaster, and conflict. Warfare, resource hoarding, ecological disaster, and pandemic diseases will become the big profit makers. Capital will flow toward lucrative ventures like cybercrime, predatory lending, and financial fraud; bribery, corruption, and racketeering; weapons, drugs, and human trafficking. Once disintegration and destruction become the primary source of profit, catabolic capitalism will rampage down the road to ruin, gorging itself on one self-inflicted disaster after another." This will lead to an early sudden and total collapse of any society that borrows heavily from the future (in excess debt) in less than 250 years from it's inception.
www.resilience.org... Looks like we are at that point now. Biden's son (corruption, bribery); open borders with massive human trafficking and drugs; creating drugs to start pandemics and profiting off the pandemics; supporting warfare, Ukraine, middle East, now fairly secretly attacking Iranian resources; cyber-crime is massive.

Looks like the US has anywhere from 26 to 90 years to go, I think given the current state of affairs 26 may be more accurate. I'll be dead by then, thank God, I'm that old.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

Good job! You have just described infringement perfectly!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

Let's see how they enjoy being part of China.

Cheers

This is the part I noticed the most:

originally posted by: network dude

"the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense,"

The Supreme Court ruling in the case of The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen clearly states that the Second Amendment guarantees that citizens not only have a right to protect themselves while at home, but also when they're away from home; i.e. in public. Hawaii is incorrect when it says that States have the authority to stop people from carrying firearms in public. Since this is a right that we have spelled out in the Constitution, states like Illinois which require several steps to go through before you can carry in public, plus $150, that means the fact that Illinois requires all these hoops and money before you can avail yourself of your rights is unconstitutional.

By Hawaii stating that their state works it differently than the other states, wouldn't that be the same as them admitting that citizens in the other 49 states have a right to carry in public, thanks to that Supreme Court ruling which was handed down on June 23rd, 2022? How is Illinois still allowed to make people pay for this right?

The citizens of Hawaii that want to protect themselves when they're away from home need to be asking this question as well.

a reply to: Station27

I have some very inconvenient facts for the gun grabbers in Illinois.

Here in Kentucky we have Constitutional Carry. In 2020 we had 697 shootings with over 60% being suicides.

Illinois, specifically the City of Chicago, where you have to jump through hoops to own a gun and more hoops to conceal carry had 4000.

If their idea of gun control works so well, why did one city total more than an entire state with much less restrictive gun laws.

They Do Not like to answer that question.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Here in Kentucky we have Constitutional Carry.

That speaks to my question. Since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees everybody the right to protect themselves when they're away from home, and that it's the law of the land, isn't Illinois part of that "land?" How can Illinois enforce their conceal carry law when it is clearly unconstitutional? I have asked that same question to the Illinois State Police, (the "enforcement" arm of the State of Illinois). I am awaiting a call back from somebody there with the answer.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

you now need a permit to speak in public and to vote. They aren't very expensive, and it only takes about a week to get them.

Get it yet?

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: network dude

So are we surprised that a highly liberal blue state makes a ruling that the Constitution and the SCOTUS are nonapplicable in their magical state of fairies and Hawaiian elves?

All the more reason to never go there.

the majesty and beauty of the islands still exists. And their attitude, as TheSingleBillie explained is that they really don't want to be a part of the US. I think they should have the right to vote on that, and if the agree, they can be on their own and we can allow them their freedom and sovereignty.

I suspect when China offers them some new roads and infrastructure upgrades, they will accept and find themselves in a much different scenario, but the only way to learn that, is the hard way. Till then, be nice. Let them have it all.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

I'd be happy to.

The Constitution states that any right or responsibility not specifically reserved to the Federal government goes to either the States or the People. The 2nd clearly establishes that the right to bear arms belongs to The People, not the States or Federal government.

If the states or Federal government could arbitrarily decide who is allowed to bear arms, it's no longer a right. It becomes a privilege. That is 180 degrees opposed to what the 2nd clearly states.

-----------------

The people of Hawaii still have an option: Jury Nullification.

Spread the word. Anyone on trial for any gun crime, you vote not guilty.

To put pressure on the Hawaiian government, expand that to anyone accused of any crime against any state or local government official. Resisting arrest? Not guilty. Assaulting a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge, mayor, governor, etc. Not guilty.

After losing a few court cases, and realizing that it's open season on government officials, Hawaiian judges might reconsider their position. And the publicity might serve as a warning to other states that want to deprive people of their Constitutional rights.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

Jury Nullification.

Spread the word. Anyone on trial for any gun crime, you vote not guilty.

To put pressure on the Hawaiian government, expand that to anyone accused of any crime against any state or local government official. Resisting arrest? Not guilty. Assaulting a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge, mayor, governor, etc. Not guilty.

After losing a few court cases, and realizing that it's open season on government officials, Hawaiian judges might reconsider their position. And the publicity might serve as a warning to other states that want to deprive people of their Constitutional rights.

if that happened, I bet the elected officials would have CCW.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

Let's see how they enjoy being part of China.

Cheers

Nearly every US city has a Chinatown. Everything in every Walmart and other big supermarket chains is made in China. Apple products are all made in China, you've got your Chinese made cars, your Chinese made computers, your Chinese made phones, your Chinese made TV's, your Chinese made clothing, they have most of the market on most things.

I would have though that Hawaii would be seceding from all that?

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

Do you need all that to be able to speak or express yourself? How about being secure in your property and effects? Or how about not self incriminating yourself? Should we have a permit for that? What about a speedy trial?

Guess what?

WITHOUT THE 2ND THE OTHERS FALL.

Some truly think that's laughable. Smh.

Doesn't matter. After Gen X goes extinct, it's over anyway. 🤷🏻

a reply to: Station27

Good luck with that. It's Illinois and they've stacked the deck in their favor. Your gun rights are whatever they allow.

a reply to: network dude

i mean this is what happens when you set a precedent of ignoring the Constitution and the supreme court, the other party will do the same. it probably wont stop at hawaii either.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Station27

Good luck with that. It's Illinois and they've stacked the deck in their favor. Your gun rights are whatever they allow.

Whatever you consent to. FIFY

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Station27

I have some very inconvenient facts for the gun grabbers in Illinois.

Here in Kentucky we have Constitutional Carry. In 2020 we had 697 shootings with over 60% being suicides.

Illinois, specifically the City of Chicago, where you have to jump through hoops to own a gun and more hoops to conceal carry had 4000.

If their idea of gun control works so well, why did one city total more than an entire state with much less restrictive gun laws.

They Do Not like to answer that question.

5 steps to getting a gun in Chicago

Less than $660 and less than 90 days wait (includes gun purchase). Doesn't seem to be too hard?

The population density of Kentucky is 110 people per square mile.
The population density of Chicago is 11,647 people per square mile.

We all know how dense them yokels from Kentucky are. Them Chicagans are nearly 106 times as dense. No wonder they be shootin' theyselves all the time.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Less than $660 and less than 90 days wait (includes gun purchase). Doesn't seem to be too hard?

You don't have to "pay" or "wait" for a right. And the Second Amendment guarantees that to keep and bear arms, at home or in public, is a right of the people. Doesn't seem to be too hard to understand, does it?

originally posted by: Station27

originally posted by: chr0naut
Less than $660 and less than 90 days wait (includes gun purchase). Doesn't seem to be too hard?

You don't have to "pay" or "wait" for a right. And the Second Amendment guarantees that to keep and bear arms, at home or in public, is a right of the people. Doesn't seem to be too hard to understand, does it?

The choice to carry, or not to carry, is entrenched in the 2nd.The choice is the 'right', not the armament itself. It also isn't a mandate that all must carry guns. People, and even states, can abstain from doing so and remain compliant because the choice, or not, to arm a militia remains.

Even the reading that it was saying that everyone should be allowed to carry guns is not common sense. Should children have the choice, or the insane, or the violently criminal? Clearly that cannot have been the intent, and so you must look back at the wording of the 2nd to determine what it was saying that was a sensible thing to say.

It also does not mention 'guns' specifically. I says "arms". So, it could mean a club, a knife, a house-brick, a bow and arrow, a flame-thrower, a bomb, or a chain-saw or anything that could be construed as armaments.

The whole of 2nd is clearly about militias and the use of arms, therein, to defend from the redcoats and other similar outside (and non-representational of the will of "we the people"), governments.

Thank goodness they didn't write a clause about self-harm.

Cause you'd be demanding that people must do it, because it's in the Constitution!

a reply to: Vermilion

I find it funny. That whole not be infringed is ignored when it comes to voting in the 15th.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

Even stronger is the denied language. But with voting we actively put some sensible roadblocks in the way. Sometimes some unreasonable ones too.

If people don't like what the HSC determined as a right for the state to regulate. Then they can take it so the SCotUS.

I thought people were for state rights?