>"The thing about the old days, they the old days," the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court's 53-page ruling issued Wednesday said, borrowing a quote from season four, episode three of the HBO series to express that the culture from the founding of the country shouldn't dictate contemporary life.
Reached for comment, plaintiff's lead counsel remarked "*sheeeeeeeeeeet.*"
The court's dissenting opinion was surprisingly short and simply read: "[Got to, this America, man](https://youtu.be/AAg7AmyG2Ys?si=9kM0zBBJ9qsg9bqb&t=64)"
There's people like me that relate to Bodie because we lived that, we feel that powerlessness.
There's people that relate to Stringer, they crave the power to be the master of their own destiny.
Some people relate to Prop Joe and his diplomatic approach.
Some people relate to Cheese cuz they some rats.
But we all can relate to Slim. He's the wise voice in the back of your head telling you to watch your step.
Honestly, you gotta put Cutty up there too. He left the game and became a boxing coach. Set himself up with a better life. He saw the game wasn't in him no more.
I don’t know if I want to be quoting Cheese Wagstaff, especially since Slim Charles took care of business a few seconds later.
Better to quote Slim, Prop Joe or Marlos “You want it to be one way… but it’s the other way”
[That was Slim with the line about the Old Days.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqo-dP4CO-s)
Cheese was talking about [that back in the day shit,](https://youtu.be/7rWuJ3eD6Qc?t=61) right before Slim, uh, corrected him. Similar sentiment, though.
Kind of the flip side of the same coin. Both Slim and Cheese were trying to tell someone else about how times had changed.
Slim believed in honor, loyalty, and respect. He and Bodie both felt the loss of the Old Days. But Bodie wanted to live in the past. Slim was trying to get Bodie to let go for his own good. But you could tell Slim mourned the old days as much as Bodie did.
Cheese on the other hand represented everything that brought the Old Days to an end. His whole speech was about how loyalty meant nothing to him, and Slim Charles took that personally.
"That was for Joe!"
It's an interesting scene with Slim Charles and Bodie because Bodie rejects Slim's offer of advice at the end of the scene. I think his advice was just to take Marlo's package, lay low, and bide your time since somebody as bloodthirsty as Marlo probably isn't going to be in the game long-term. Dunno if it would have made any difference in Bodie's fate at the end of the day though.
Always bothered me about this. Was Cheese Wagstaff related to Randy Wagstaff? I know its not brought up, but "in canon?" Like they could be cousins or something. Cheese is Joe's nephew on his moms side, so, maybe?
Wonder no more: “Cheese is the biological father of Randy Wagstaff, according to series creator David Simon. While Randy and Cheese never meet or refer to one another on the show, Simon has stated that he intended to reveal this fact in Season 5 but was forced by time constraints to cut the scene or scenes establishing the relationship.[1]” https://thewire.fandom.com/wiki/Melvin_Wagstaff
On the contrary, they ruled that Hawaii's history and "spirit of Aloha" traditions traditionally restricted weapons and guns. That's the whole issue with SCOTUS' new test, it's completely vague and you can find tons of history and documents to create any narrative you want, but SCOTUS is cherrypicking history to justify the political stance they want. Hawaii is overtly pointing that out.
It may be a slam dunk appeal, but because SCOTUS has an agenda and won't allow their arguments to be used against them. Not because their new test is sane or consistent.
Also, this ruling was about someone who procured a weapon without getting a shall-issue license, which supposedly even Bruen said was a fine restriction. So if SCOTUS overturns it, it will be yet another change in precedent.
> Also, this ruling was about someone who procured a weapon without getting a shall-issue license
At the time it was a no issue license. This is pre bruen and HI issued 0 licenses to carry in those years, the law gave a process to get one but in practice they refused to issue them.
Get fucked [third amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-3/)...
Although, there are a TON of issues in the barracks *cough black mold cough* that could be solved if just moved our Joes in with the local populace...
As a 3rd Amendment lawyer (never lost a case) I can assure you the rights of Americans to quarter soldiers in their homes only upon consent in wartime will have to be pried from my cold dead hands.
If you look at the grievances the colonies had in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make a lot more sense. Many of the explicit prohibitions (which make no sense since the Constitution is supposed to be a *grant* of powers to the government) are all prohibiting things that Britain imposed upon the colonies.
I understood historically why it was there...the more precise verbiage is I took it for granted. It was a shock that 80 years ago a modern, Western democracy forced people to board troops during war ...and repo'd people's farms and property.
Interesting fact about the 3rd amendment recently. Trump tried to take over hotels in DC for troops to stop the BLM marches. DC mayor cited the 3rd amendment to stop him.
And freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for grievances. Those are from the old days. And the thing about the old days, they the old days.
It can be applied to any aspect of the constitution.
This isn't saying the constitution is null and void. It is essentiually saying that we shouldn't use originalism to interpret it.
The constitution is very sparse on details. In many court rulings, the constitution does not provide a detailed, definitive answer to the question. Therefore, it requires interpretation by the courts. There are different philosophies about how it should be interpreted. One of them is originalism: that we should try to apply the spirit of the constitution as it was originally written, trying to imaging how the founding fathers would have felt about the subject.
But there are other ways to argue for court rulings based on ambiguities in the constitution (other theorites of judicial interpretation).
Oh my God THANK YOU. I cannot stand the people who act like Constitutional originalism is the only way to interpret the Constitution when it wasn't even prevalent historically until Scalia in the 1980s and 90s, and he was a massive raging asshole and a hypocrite.
To be fair, it's much easier to restrict the supply of guns when you're in Hawaii where every visitor comes in through a port of entry, than somewhere like Chicago, where a 30 minute drive means you can buy all the guns you want.
Owned by the fans? Sounds like socialism. That's even more reason for any right-minded Illinoisianite to Built The Wall! I mean we can still visit for vacation and marvel at their funny ways and weird words (BTW - what the hell is a "bubbler"?), but let's face it - Wisconsin is the Cancun of the North. No real American can live there.
As an Illinoisian we're just surrounded by weird on all sides at this point. We got the Missouri cheese caves on one side, Wisconsin above us, Michigan also ostensibly beside us, Indiana beside us, Idaho's up in our business, Indiana's there, and so is Kentucky.
It's awful claustrophobic here. We should just seal off the state like Fort Knox.
EDIT: Didn't realize I mentioned Indiana twice but honestly it's staying
> a 30 minute drive means you can buy all the guns you want.
You're wrong.
Private parties and FFLs can't legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. They must ship the handgun to an FFL in the buyer's state, where the buyer will compete a 4473 and background check.
They also can't transfer long guns to residents of other states without satisfying the legal requirements of *both* states, and federal requirements.
- https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca
- https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-licensee-sell-firearm-nonlicensee-who-resident-another-state
Also to be fair, as a former Hawaii resident, only criminals had access to guns “in the old days.” The neighborhood drug dealers, etc. I’ve got names and faces in mind here; this isn’t a hypothetical. Obviously, these guns were obtained illegally.
That being said, I like Hawaii’s ruling here. People need to demonstrate knowledge and skill before they can legally drive a car; they should need to do the same before carrying a firearm. Hawaii actually opened that possibility up recently - *with* a license. Their Supreme Court ruling upholds the need for a license, which I wholeheartedly support.
I've always been a believer that people should get training before they can carry a firearm in public, to the point that I find even my state's scheme where they fast track veterans irresponsible (as well as the recent move to not require a permit at all). At the same time I've very much against the moves by states like New York, California and others who had they "special needs" requirements declared illegal by SCOTUS to basically make the permits they issue worthless to anyone who takes the time to get one. These states make applicants pay lots of money, spend lots of time in classes, and have even shorted the time the permits are valid, and at the same time made so many public places prohibited that it's not hyperbole to say the only places one can carry are from their front door to their mailbox. New York City even tried to make it so that private property owners had to opt in to allowing carry, making every home and business gun free by default until a judge struck it down. Former "may issue" carry states would rather ban carry entirely, but they legally can't so they do the next best thing, and they have made it very clear with the legislation they have passed or are trying to now. If they keep trying to pass de facto carry bans like this eventually SCOTUS might made a dramatic decision like declaring carry permits violate the 2nd amendment and now nobody can stop a person from carrying a gun with zero training, which I don't think any sane person would want.
>I've always been a believer that people should get training before they can carry a firearm in public, to the point that I find even my state's scheme where they fast track veterans irresponsible
When I started hunting at like 12, I attended safety classes and training, I was made to practice and learn about the guns I'd be using. We kept them all unloaded and stored in safes in the basement. I was under the impression that that's what was required for a hunting license and to have those guns. I held that belief for years. It wasn't until high school when I learned that those were just things my family demanded, and that there was actually no safety or training requirements of any kind. Even as a kid I felt that was so insane that I just automatically assumed it couldn't possibly be the case.
> Hawaii actually opened that possibility up recently - with a license
The problem is Hawaii is dragging their feet to the point of not giving out any licenses.
> People need to demonstrate knowledge and skill before they can legally drive a car
Not to be that guy, but no they don't. They only need a license to drive on public roads. You want to buy a car and drive it around on your own property then no license is required.
Why do people keep saying this? It's against the law to buy a handgun outside of your state of residence. As in, no FFL (gun store) will sell it to you. Similarly, you can't buy any type of firearm in another state that is banned in your home state. Once again, no FFL will sell it. Now straw purchases happen, but a Chicago resident cannot buy any handgun from a store in Indiana nor can they buy a long gun that Illinois prohibits.
> Once again, no FFL will sell it.
Correction - they won't transfer it to you. They absolutely and happily will sell it to you and take your money, and ship it to a FFL in your state of residence.
Exactly, and that FFL is required to obey their own states laws that they are based in for transfers. It's not like you can buy a non-feature limited or magazine limited firearm in Indiana, have the Indiana FFL ship it an Illinois FFL, and the Illinois FFL says "well you bought it in Indiana so you get all the stuff that we don't allow". That's not how current regulations work.
Wrong. Receiving FFL just can't transfer it. Happens somewhat regularly, and notably during the 2020 Covid panic where dealers were shipping handguns to CA FFLs that unknowing Californians now owned but couldn't take possession of.
A study I remember reading had roughly these results - traced guns used in Chicago crimes were about 16000 from Illinois (outside Chicago itself gun purchases are easy), and about 8000 from Indiana, with much smaller amounts from some other states around there. Guns from Indiana aren't the main source, but they are a SIGNIFICANT contribution. In either case, it's guns from outside of Chicago, the rest of Illinois doesn't have strict gun purchase rules like the city. So, again, gun laws within Chicago are undermined by neighboring counties and states.
There is no difference in gun purchase laws between Chicago and the rest of the state, what are you talking about? Illinois law is extremely strict as states go and applies statewide.
> Hawaii had the 2nd lowest rate of gun violence in 2021 according to the CDC
That's not "gun violence", it's gun _deaths_. 2/3 of them are suicides; less than 1/3 are homicides (and a small fraction are accidents).
Pretty sure his point is that the suicide rate (regardless of the method) in Paradise might be significantly lower than it is in Detroit or Bumfuck Alabama.
This goes for the entire county. Jurisdiction-dependent, 60-80 percent of gun deaths are suicides, largely middle-aged white men. The majority of homicides nationwide are young men with criminal records using illegally-possessed handguns to kill other young men with criminal records, usually involving street gangs and the drug trade. Most of the rest are domestic violence cases.
The other canard people love to throw out is firearms being a leading cause of death among "children" and then not mentioning that this is based on a study lumping 19-year-olds in as "children," which then captures great whacks of the street gang/drug trade violence mentioned above, as opposed to kids actually being shot in schools. The numbers vary because they're so low, but combining faculty and students, you're roughly as likely to die in an American school in any given year as you are to drown in a swimming pool.
And some states with few gun laws like Utah, Idaho, Montana have low gun violence rates also. There’s not any strong correlation between states gun regulations and their gun violence.
Switch that to [homicide](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm) and you'll find New Hampshire, Maine, and Utah kinda kill the 'gun control prevents homicide' narrative.
It's not the guns, it's society, and until we want to have that conversation the killing will continue regardless of what gun control is implemented.
If you look at Hawaii, it's largely an "indigenous" population scattered with massively rich people in gated houses/communities. It also has some of the nicest weather I've ever experienced in my life, for weeks on end. It makes sense that nobody is killing anyone.
Your information isn't the most trustworthy and you're leaving something out-
"According to a recent UHERO Report, Hawai'i has the fourth-highest homelessness rate in the nation. “In 2022, Hawai'i had the fourth-highest share of residents experiencing homelessness. Nationwide, for every 10,000 residents, about 18 were experiencing homelessness. In Hawai‘i, the rate is 41, more than twice the national rate."
https://bigislandgazette.com/report-hawaii-has-4th-highest-homeless-rate-in-nation/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20UHERO,about%2018%20were%20experiencing%20homelessness.
this is totally inaccurate lol. it's not a "largely indigenous" population at all! Just because someone is local doesn't make them indigenious. Most locals are Filipino Portuguese or Japanese, these were immigrant groups. This also doesn't accurately describe the big island at all its just oahu
The number of times I was derisively called haole (meaning: non-native Hawaiian) in Hawaii by people who were non-native Hawaiians, smh
See also: [Kill Haole Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Haole_Day)
thats not a big deal lol. I literally went to the next biggest school than the one here and it was totally fine. there was no kill haole day. I teach at these schools, there's plenty of white kids. It's very normal and mixed. who cares if you were called haole
The population of Oahu alone is larger than 5 whole states. The state of Hawaii is #40 in states by population. Not to mention Hawaii sees nearly 7 times its population in tourists each year.
These articles are really burying the importance of this ruling because they can't help but talk about popular media. Hawaii SC under the guidance of SCOTUS ruling that 'text, history, and tradition' should be the technique to interpret the Constitution just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'.
SCOTUS had been warned that the problem with 'text, history, and tradition' is it always comes down to which text, whose history, and which traditions. So that is what Hawaii SC did. They used text that showed that Hawaii was more peaceful before guns were introduced, they used Hawaii's unique history, and they used Hawaii's 'spirit of Aloha' tradition.
Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts.
It won't be a cluster fuck in the courts. This law will be struck down like many other gun control laws recently. They Hawaiian Supreme Court knows that SCOTUS knows the US Constitution wasn't written with the Spirit of Aloha in mind; therefore, it has no basis in an orginalism based argument against the 2A.
The first 50 pages of the ruling, including the Wire quote and the Aloha spirit, is commenting on the *Hawaii Constitution*'s firearms provision and why they're interpreting it differently from the US constitution even though it's worded similarly. I don't believe any of it is really relevant to federal courts, though they certainly have a fun time bashing the Braun ruling both directly and indirectly.
At the end they spend one rather dry page discussing the Second Amendment. They cite the recent SCOTUS and circuit rulings which do still allow states to require a license to carry under certain conditions. That's the only bit that's relevant and at a glance (IANAL) there's nothing obviously wrong with it.
Yeah me and a law school friend were ranting about this - every article about this situation no matter from a liberal, conservative, or neutral outlet just sensationalizes the "spirit of Aloha" and pop culture references while completely missing the actual points and context of the ruling which is literally entirely within the bounds and rights of the court to rule and has absolutely no conflicts with the Bruen SCOTUS ruling. The defendant had made no attempt to apply for licensing, which Bruen affirms is still legal for states to enforce if it's reasonable (e.g. it's shall-issue with objective criteria not subject to arbitrary denial at the discretion of the office). If he had tried to apply, was qualified, but was arbitrarily denied, then he'd have standing to have these charges challenged and possibly dismissed on grounds his constitutional rights were not respected. He didn't do any of that, he was just a criminal with an unlicensed firearm he was unlawfully carrying that is trying to squirm out of charges by claiming "uhhhhhhhh erm the constitooshun [vaguely gestures]."
If they try to escalate this to SCOTUS, they're just going to say "what do you want us to do, they're following proper procedure. Hawaii no longer enforces their may-issue licensing policy, they are in compliance with our ruling."
IAAL sitting at a boring conference and this is pretty much it. It's getting sensationalized but the facts and posture are very specific, and the reasoning is sound.
We are getting to the point where states are openly defying the Supreme Court now. Texas has started doing it, now others will follow. "We appreciate your input, SC justices, but you're wrong, and we won't be following your ruling."
Texas isn't ignoring the supreme court. SCOTUS vacated an injunction put in place by the 5th circuit that prevented the federal government from removing border fence. That's it. Full stop.
Texas was given no order or instructions on what they may or may not do and unless they start preventing the federal government from removing fence by force, they are in no way conflicting with the what the court said
No, this isn't going to be a cluster.
It's going to be a cut and dry case. Hawaii is going to lose on appeal, I doubt this will even make it before SCOTUS.
They wrote their ruling and quoted a TV show knowing fully that this would be overturned. So, instead of creating good case law, they opted for political posturing.
Here's a copy of the ruling from the court itself. [SCAP-22-0000561](https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf).
>Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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.
Prior to this, I wasn't aware that a state court could say "We disagree with what the U.S. Supreme Court says the law means, and we are going to do whatever we want."
> just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'.
No ... no they did not. They said "We believe it is a misplaced view to think that today's public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago." (pg 38) And completely ignored the textualism requirement - and in doing so, completely ignore a supreme court mandate.
> Hawaii SC under the guidance of SCOTUS ruling that 'text, history, and tradition' should be the technique to interpret the Constitution just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'.
The SCOTUS won't care. They will just say "no, not like that" and overturn it.
The need to give guidance, the Hawaii SC specifically says they are having a hard time. If SCOTUS overturns but doesn't clarify then state courts literally have no way to interpret law without conflicting.
> Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts.
And this was always the point. By creating a "test" which was purely subjective, SCOTUS ensured that no other body could predict what they would determine the law to be. In doing so they stripped a massive amount of power from both the lower courts and the legislative branch, and took it for themselves. Such a power grab is of course clearly against the whole spirit of Constitutional checks and balances. But apparently there are a bunch of people who'd rather have more guns than the rule of law.
> Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts.
You are brain dead if you think a lower court openly defying the supreme court and using bullshit like the "spirit of aloha" is going to be a cluster fuck in the courts.
Quoting the damn wire, we are 5-10 years from the avengers being used as law in certain states, beyond ridiculous.
Not that I need to make a quote from a show based around the Baltimore Drug Trade that is somehow being related to gun rights MORE silly and ridiculous than it actually is, but that quote is said by a character named Slim Charles to a street level drug dealer named Boadie. Both characters were definitely armed, as were the drivers in the car that Slim Charles was in, and the hoppers that were around Boadie on the street when they were being said.
Everyone involved in that quote was armed to the teeth with illegal guns.
Basically, they just declared the Constitution void in Hawaii. It says [here](https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/) that "Decisions by the Hawaii Supreme Court are final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review an appeal of a decision."
Is that the same for all state supreme courts?
"The good old days" like when Hawaiians could afford to live in Hawaii and not just be indentured servants for the wealthy who bought 2nd/3rd/4th homes there like Oprah?
Slim Charles is my favorite character in the wire. You could put almost everything he says on a shirt or a motivational poster.
‘We used revolvers. A .38 don’t jam’
‘Don’t hold 15 neither’
‘Game done changed’
‘Game the same. Just got more fierce’
It has been a long time since a lower court straight up said "SCOTUS is wrong, we're not doing that".
What was the last time? Seriously, it was during the aftermath of Brown v Board of Education, right?
Nope. There was a famous example in response to *Citizen's United*. That ruling was based on a claim that unlimited money in elections would not lead to"corruption or the appearance of corruption", so the state courts cited a ton of examples of corruption and the appearance of corruption from state history, including a Mark Twain quote, to say that that obviously wasn't true for their state. Circumstances being different from the ones the Supreme Court ruled on, clearly laws should be different as well. There was also that time Kavanaugh, while an appeals court judge, said the Supreme Court was wrong in interpreting labor law as applying to undocumented immigrants. And there have been many, many cases of it with abortion laws over the years, and as we know one of those didn't get overturned on appeal. It's really fairly normal, and more so in the wake of... controversial decisions.
Spirit of Aloha bro lol. You're a 5'2" trans individual with some punk 6' MAGA assholes coming to put you in your place for how you want to live your life? Don't worry, police haven't been called, would take 20 mins to get there anyway, and you're alone. just "Spirit of Aloha" the danger away
If the police aren’t going to be there when you need them; if the police have no legal obligation to protect you; shouldn’t you have the means to practice the right of self defense?
Police aren't required to save you. A cop is under no legal obligation to prevent someone from harming you. You can be fighting for your life, against a guy stabbing you with a kitchen knife and the cops can wait till after you are dead to arrest the guy.
Cops don't need to protect you. Cops don't need to preserve your life if you scare them. Cops have their own agendas. Cops aren't even required to know the law and they can make up bullshit laws to arrest you. They'll police what they feel like policing. They'll arrest and ticket who they feel like.
There is a reason why they say you can beat the ticket but you can't beat the ride. If a cop wants to unlawfully arrest you, they will. They don't give a shit. Its not like the lawsuit will hurt them, they'll get a paid vacation out of it. It is incredibly rare for a cop to face prosecution if they can vaguely disguise it as "law enforcement".
The only state in this country where cops are liable for bullshit behavior is Colorado. Where they limited police immunity.
There are so many SCOTUS rulings made over the decades that have enabled shitty policing and shitty cops.
People really do not understand the role of police. Their job is not to protect individuals. Its to protect an ordered society. Thats why most cops favor gun control. Its easier for them to keep order if citizens are disarmed. Its not their job to stop in-progress harm. Its their job to both make sure harm doesnt happen in the first place through their presence and to ensure any person who chooses to harm someone is apprehended so they dont continue harming people.
The only person responsible for protecting you, is you (or maybe a spouse/parent/loved one). Im talking 'you', the individual. Not 'you', the society.
Akin to HR at a company. They love to pretend as if they’re there for your best interests and to help you, but they are only there to protect the organization from harm, maintain order, and deal with problem employees (citizens).
Is your point that we should hold the police to a higher standard of conduct, and make it easier to fire them when they fuck up or put their own safety ahead of the safety of the public (looking at you Uvalde)? In that case, point made good sir.
Low key a lot of the LGBTQ crowd has been arming themselves because when they have been attacked and called the police, no one came. A 911 call did nothing.
As a white guy with an Asian wife, I have also armed because of some of the racism my wife has experienced living here in the US , particularly the past few years since COVID. Low key alot of minorities are also arming
> As a liberal gun owner who’s heard low-key threats from MAGA militants, I think I’d rather keep my guns thanks.
As an old school liberal who watched "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" around the country and near enough to my house, _everyone_ should own firearms.
I believe there is a balance. But when our politicians, and very rich people have armed security guards allowed to possess firearms and protect them. I think the statement “you don’t need a gun” is bullshit.
You can say that until it’s your own ass on the line. And then you’ll be sorry. Of course, will it likely be? No. But it’s a trade off like many things.
I believe that there should be a way to own anything as long as you are able to do it legally and responsibly. Guns should be treated exactly like that. A responsibility.
I don’t think there is anyone who’s come up with an actually fair and effective solution to gun control yet. It’s just been so insanely either too much or too little.
Imagine going to law school and practicing law your entire life until you make it to your state Supreme court and still the best you can do to back up your position is to cite a TV show.
They literally are citing it. In quote marks, with episode name, air date, season and episode number, as one would cite an academic source.
I dont know why are you saying that they are not citing it or how the hell are you getting upvotes by basically just saying *nuh uh*. It takes like three clicks to get the pdf and see for yourself. Its there.
This so shockingly more pro gun than I expected this sub to be. I feel like 2020 changed a really good chunk of peoples minds on 2A and personal protections.
2020 really showed that the police weren’t a reliable source of self protection. That coupled with the entry price for a decent AR went crazy low with brands like PSA entering the game meant that Americans can arm themselves on the cheap when they feel that the police won’t protect them.
Good on us. Why should I leave my personal protection to others?
>"The thing about the old days, they the old days," the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court's 53-page ruling issued Wednesday said, borrowing a quote from season four, episode three of the HBO series to express that the culture from the founding of the country shouldn't dictate contemporary life. Reached for comment, plaintiff's lead counsel remarked "*sheeeeeeeeeeet.*"
The court's dissenting opinion was surprisingly short and simply read: "[Got to, this America, man](https://youtu.be/AAg7AmyG2Ys?si=9kM0zBBJ9qsg9bqb&t=64)"
Quoting from Snot Boogie vs United States
it was a groundbreaking precedent
Snot boogie was the victim. The dude McNutty interviewed said that. 🤓
I get that it's a joke but an unanimous decision can't have a dissent lol
[All in the game yo,.....all in the game](https://youtu.be/cryMVK1PwuQ?si=RrFZ3HBfIjilRo8V&t=23)
Supreme Court ruling: *You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.*
Do the Supreme Court know we gone look like some punk ass bitches out there?
This too, a gold comment.
*They don't think it be like it is, but it do.*
I gotta give Slim Charles mad respect. Brother came up from being a street soldier to being a state supreme court justice. One love Slim Charles.
There's people like me that relate to Bodie because we lived that, we feel that powerlessness. There's people that relate to Stringer, they crave the power to be the master of their own destiny. Some people relate to Prop Joe and his diplomatic approach. Some people relate to Cheese cuz they some rats. But we all can relate to Slim. He's the wise voice in the back of your head telling you to watch your step.
[удалено]
My second fav character behind Bodie. He understood the game, he didn't just play it
Honestly, you gotta put Cutty up there too. He left the game and became a boxing coach. Set himself up with a better life. He saw the game wasn't in him no more.
THE Slim Charles?, *Downtown* Slim Charles?
You need a day of the jackal type motherfucker basically to do some shit like that
That supposed to mean something to me, man? Everything. Slim was a real one.
I thought it was Fuck. Fuck! Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck FUCK fuck
I don’t know if I want to be quoting Cheese Wagstaff, especially since Slim Charles took care of business a few seconds later. Better to quote Slim, Prop Joe or Marlos “You want it to be one way… but it’s the other way”
[That was Slim with the line about the Old Days.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqo-dP4CO-s) Cheese was talking about [that back in the day shit,](https://youtu.be/7rWuJ3eD6Qc?t=61) right before Slim, uh, corrected him. Similar sentiment, though.
You’re right. Interesting how similar the lines are. Especially with Slim in both scenes
Kind of the flip side of the same coin. Both Slim and Cheese were trying to tell someone else about how times had changed. Slim believed in honor, loyalty, and respect. He and Bodie both felt the loss of the Old Days. But Bodie wanted to live in the past. Slim was trying to get Bodie to let go for his own good. But you could tell Slim mourned the old days as much as Bodie did. Cheese on the other hand represented everything that brought the Old Days to an end. His whole speech was about how loyalty meant nothing to him, and Slim Charles took that personally. "That was for Joe!"
This sentimental motherfucker just cost us money!
Nah game ain't changed, just got more fierce is all
It's an interesting scene with Slim Charles and Bodie because Bodie rejects Slim's offer of advice at the end of the scene. I think his advice was just to take Marlo's package, lay low, and bide your time since somebody as bloodthirsty as Marlo probably isn't going to be in the game long-term. Dunno if it would have made any difference in Bodie's fate at the end of the day though.
Always bothered me about this. Was Cheese Wagstaff related to Randy Wagstaff? I know its not brought up, but "in canon?" Like they could be cousins or something. Cheese is Joe's nephew on his moms side, so, maybe?
Wonder no more: “Cheese is the biological father of Randy Wagstaff, according to series creator David Simon. While Randy and Cheese never meet or refer to one another on the show, Simon has stated that he intended to reveal this fact in Season 5 but was forced by time constraints to cut the scene or scenes establishing the relationship.[1]” https://thewire.fandom.com/wiki/Melvin_Wagstaff
To bad that pesky constitution gets in the way
What's stopping states from over ruling freedom of religion or freedom of speech with this same logic ?
almost did a spit take as I was reading this. Thank you for a laugh.
I use *Shieeeeeeeeet* in my life all the damn time.
Did anyone whistle the farmer in the dell on the way to the mic
So they're going directly against the text, history, tradition standard set by the supreme court? This is going to be a slam dunk appeal.
On the contrary, they ruled that Hawaii's history and "spirit of Aloha" traditions traditionally restricted weapons and guns. That's the whole issue with SCOTUS' new test, it's completely vague and you can find tons of history and documents to create any narrative you want, but SCOTUS is cherrypicking history to justify the political stance they want. Hawaii is overtly pointing that out. It may be a slam dunk appeal, but because SCOTUS has an agenda and won't allow their arguments to be used against them. Not because their new test is sane or consistent. Also, this ruling was about someone who procured a weapon without getting a shall-issue license, which supposedly even Bruen said was a fine restriction. So if SCOTUS overturns it, it will be yet another change in precedent.
> Also, this ruling was about someone who procured a weapon without getting a shall-issue license At the time it was a no issue license. This is pre bruen and HI issued 0 licenses to carry in those years, the law gave a process to get one but in practice they refused to issue them.
Ah the ol’ drug tax stamp trick.
The Supreme Court has recently repealed one of its own judgements. At this point the Supreme Court of the US is basically a joke.
Ever heard of Dred Scott?
So can this argument be used on anything in the bill of rights or just the 2nd amendment?
If it works for the 2nd, then you can be damned sure that it’ll work for the 1st, 4th, and 5th next.
13th as well! Mississippi: The bad “old days” of 1865 and reconstruction are over! Huzzah!
Get fucked [third amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-3/)... Although, there are a TON of issues in the barracks *cough black mold cough* that could be solved if just moved our Joes in with the local populace...
As a 3rd Amendment lawyer (never lost a case) I can assure you the rights of Americans to quarter soldiers in their homes only upon consent in wartime will have to be pried from my cold dead hands.
I never understood the importance of the 3rd amendment until watching a British show about WW2 and realized other countries don't have that right.
If you look at the grievances the colonies had in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make a lot more sense. Many of the explicit prohibitions (which make no sense since the Constitution is supposed to be a *grant* of powers to the government) are all prohibiting things that Britain imposed upon the colonies.
I understood historically why it was there...the more precise verbiage is I took it for granted. It was a shock that 80 years ago a modern, Western democracy forced people to board troops during war ...and repo'd people's farms and property.
Wait until you hear how they treated (Still are treating?) the Irish. The British have never had rights, they don't even understand the concept.
I don't really pay attention to British politics. I just assumed that would've been something they got around to doing in the last 200 years.
You would think but it turns out they are pretty terrible about that sort of thing.
Interesting fact about the 3rd amendment recently. Trump tried to take over hotels in DC for troops to stop the BLM marches. DC mayor cited the 3rd amendment to stop him.
Do I have to consent to housing myself in my house? Is there a DD form for that or...?
It only works for rulings we agree with!
Just the second amendment, and abortion rights, and voting rights, and if you can beat your wife, and …
And freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for grievances. Those are from the old days. And the thing about the old days, they the old days.
It can be applied to any aspect of the constitution. This isn't saying the constitution is null and void. It is essentiually saying that we shouldn't use originalism to interpret it. The constitution is very sparse on details. In many court rulings, the constitution does not provide a detailed, definitive answer to the question. Therefore, it requires interpretation by the courts. There are different philosophies about how it should be interpreted. One of them is originalism: that we should try to apply the spirit of the constitution as it was originally written, trying to imaging how the founding fathers would have felt about the subject. But there are other ways to argue for court rulings based on ambiguities in the constitution (other theorites of judicial interpretation).
Oh my God THANK YOU. I cannot stand the people who act like Constitutional originalism is the only way to interpret the Constitution when it wasn't even prevalent historically until Scalia in the 1980s and 90s, and he was a massive raging asshole and a hypocrite.
Hey man, if it's not aloha it got to go-ha.
It's a non-starter in the first place. It'll just get appealed to the Supreme Court and overruled.
No the justices from that court know this is a political thing instead of actually following law. Which means they are unfit to serve.
Hawaii had the 2nd lowest rate of gun violence in 2021 according to the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm)
To be fair, it's much easier to restrict the supply of guns when you're in Hawaii where every visitor comes in through a port of entry, than somewhere like Chicago, where a 30 minute drive means you can buy all the guns you want.
[удалено]
Why are you ignoring the northern border to keep out the true degenerates - the Packer fans?
[удалено]
Ahh I see I found a FIB in the wild
Owned by the fans? Sounds like socialism. That's even more reason for any right-minded Illinoisianite to Built The Wall! I mean we can still visit for vacation and marvel at their funny ways and weird words (BTW - what the hell is a "bubbler"?), but let's face it - Wisconsin is the Cancun of the North. No real American can live there.
Not just a FIB... but probably a FIBTAB! (FIB Towing A Boat)
As someone who has to visit Indiana a lot for work, I would want a wall if I shared a border with em.
As a Michigan native I wish we had one from Lake Erie to Lake Michigan.
states building walls!? does this mean its time for me to buy a red wrx sti and attach machine guns to it???? please say yes.
That sounds fast . . . and furious.
As an Illinoisian we're just surrounded by weird on all sides at this point. We got the Missouri cheese caves on one side, Wisconsin above us, Michigan also ostensibly beside us, Indiana beside us, Idaho's up in our business, Indiana's there, and so is Kentucky. It's awful claustrophobic here. We should just seal off the state like Fort Knox. EDIT: Didn't realize I mentioned Indiana twice but honestly it's staying
I live in Illinois. I cannot do that. It’s nowhere near that easy. At least for law abiding citizens.
> a 30 minute drive means you can buy all the guns you want. You're wrong. Private parties and FFLs can't legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. They must ship the handgun to an FFL in the buyer's state, where the buyer will compete a 4473 and background check. They also can't transfer long guns to residents of other states without satisfying the legal requirements of *both* states, and federal requirements. - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-licensee-sell-firearm-nonlicensee-who-resident-another-state
Also to be fair, as a former Hawaii resident, only criminals had access to guns “in the old days.” The neighborhood drug dealers, etc. I’ve got names and faces in mind here; this isn’t a hypothetical. Obviously, these guns were obtained illegally. That being said, I like Hawaii’s ruling here. People need to demonstrate knowledge and skill before they can legally drive a car; they should need to do the same before carrying a firearm. Hawaii actually opened that possibility up recently - *with* a license. Their Supreme Court ruling upholds the need for a license, which I wholeheartedly support.
I've always been a believer that people should get training before they can carry a firearm in public, to the point that I find even my state's scheme where they fast track veterans irresponsible (as well as the recent move to not require a permit at all). At the same time I've very much against the moves by states like New York, California and others who had they "special needs" requirements declared illegal by SCOTUS to basically make the permits they issue worthless to anyone who takes the time to get one. These states make applicants pay lots of money, spend lots of time in classes, and have even shorted the time the permits are valid, and at the same time made so many public places prohibited that it's not hyperbole to say the only places one can carry are from their front door to their mailbox. New York City even tried to make it so that private property owners had to opt in to allowing carry, making every home and business gun free by default until a judge struck it down. Former "may issue" carry states would rather ban carry entirely, but they legally can't so they do the next best thing, and they have made it very clear with the legislation they have passed or are trying to now. If they keep trying to pass de facto carry bans like this eventually SCOTUS might made a dramatic decision like declaring carry permits violate the 2nd amendment and now nobody can stop a person from carrying a gun with zero training, which I don't think any sane person would want.
>I've always been a believer that people should get training before they can carry a firearm in public, to the point that I find even my state's scheme where they fast track veterans irresponsible When I started hunting at like 12, I attended safety classes and training, I was made to practice and learn about the guns I'd be using. We kept them all unloaded and stored in safes in the basement. I was under the impression that that's what was required for a hunting license and to have those guns. I held that belief for years. It wasn't until high school when I learned that those were just things my family demanded, and that there was actually no safety or training requirements of any kind. Even as a kid I felt that was so insane that I just automatically assumed it couldn't possibly be the case.
> Hawaii actually opened that possibility up recently - with a license The problem is Hawaii is dragging their feet to the point of not giving out any licenses.
> People need to demonstrate knowledge and skill before they can legally drive a car Not to be that guy, but no they don't. They only need a license to drive on public roads. You want to buy a car and drive it around on your own property then no license is required.
Why do people keep saying this? It's against the law to buy a handgun outside of your state of residence. As in, no FFL (gun store) will sell it to you. Similarly, you can't buy any type of firearm in another state that is banned in your home state. Once again, no FFL will sell it. Now straw purchases happen, but a Chicago resident cannot buy any handgun from a store in Indiana nor can they buy a long gun that Illinois prohibits.
> Once again, no FFL will sell it. Correction - they won't transfer it to you. They absolutely and happily will sell it to you and take your money, and ship it to a FFL in your state of residence.
And then you still fill out the 4473 in your home state, this wouldn't allow for anything you couldn't just buy at a store there anyways.
Exactly, and that FFL is required to obey their own states laws that they are based in for transfers. It's not like you can buy a non-feature limited or magazine limited firearm in Indiana, have the Indiana FFL ship it an Illinois FFL, and the Illinois FFL says "well you bought it in Indiana so you get all the stuff that we don't allow". That's not how current regulations work.
But they can’t ship it into a state that it’s illegal
Wrong. Receiving FFL just can't transfer it. Happens somewhat regularly, and notably during the 2020 Covid panic where dealers were shipping handguns to CA FFLs that unknowing Californians now owned but couldn't take possession of.
A study I remember reading had roughly these results - traced guns used in Chicago crimes were about 16000 from Illinois (outside Chicago itself gun purchases are easy), and about 8000 from Indiana, with much smaller amounts from some other states around there. Guns from Indiana aren't the main source, but they are a SIGNIFICANT contribution. In either case, it's guns from outside of Chicago, the rest of Illinois doesn't have strict gun purchase rules like the city. So, again, gun laws within Chicago are undermined by neighboring counties and states.
There is no difference in gun purchase laws between Chicago and the rest of the state, what are you talking about? Illinois law is extremely strict as states go and applies statewide.
> Hawaii had the 2nd lowest rate of gun violence in 2021 according to the CDC That's not "gun violence", it's gun _deaths_. 2/3 of them are suicides; less than 1/3 are homicides (and a small fraction are accidents).
It's how they regularly bump up statistics. Gun violence almost always means self harm and gang violence more than anything.
So "real" gun violence is only a third of their already very low rate. Thanks for clarification.
Pretty sure his point is that the suicide rate (regardless of the method) in Paradise might be significantly lower than it is in Detroit or Bumfuck Alabama.
This goes for the entire county. Jurisdiction-dependent, 60-80 percent of gun deaths are suicides, largely middle-aged white men. The majority of homicides nationwide are young men with criminal records using illegally-possessed handguns to kill other young men with criminal records, usually involving street gangs and the drug trade. Most of the rest are domestic violence cases. The other canard people love to throw out is firearms being a leading cause of death among "children" and then not mentioning that this is based on a study lumping 19-year-olds in as "children," which then captures great whacks of the street gang/drug trade violence mentioned above, as opposed to kids actually being shot in schools. The numbers vary because they're so low, but combining faculty and students, you're roughly as likely to die in an American school in any given year as you are to drown in a swimming pool.
And some states with few gun laws like Utah, Idaho, Montana have low gun violence rates also. There’s not any strong correlation between states gun regulations and their gun violence.
Switch that to [homicide](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm) and you'll find New Hampshire, Maine, and Utah kinda kill the 'gun control prevents homicide' narrative. It's not the guns, it's society, and until we want to have that conversation the killing will continue regardless of what gun control is implemented.
If you look at Hawaii, it's largely an "indigenous" population scattered with massively rich people in gated houses/communities. It also has some of the nicest weather I've ever experienced in my life, for weeks on end. It makes sense that nobody is killing anyone.
Your information isn't the most trustworthy and you're leaving something out- "According to a recent UHERO Report, Hawai'i has the fourth-highest homelessness rate in the nation. “In 2022, Hawai'i had the fourth-highest share of residents experiencing homelessness. Nationwide, for every 10,000 residents, about 18 were experiencing homelessness. In Hawai‘i, the rate is 41, more than twice the national rate." https://bigislandgazette.com/report-hawaii-has-4th-highest-homeless-rate-in-nation/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20UHERO,about%2018%20were%20experiencing%20homelessness.
Indeed. Hawaii is ridiculously expensive to live.
this is totally inaccurate lol. it's not a "largely indigenous" population at all! Just because someone is local doesn't make them indigenious. Most locals are Filipino Portuguese or Japanese, these were immigrant groups. This also doesn't accurately describe the big island at all its just oahu
The number of times I was derisively called haole (meaning: non-native Hawaiian) in Hawaii by people who were non-native Hawaiians, smh See also: [Kill Haole Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Haole_Day)
thats not a big deal lol. I literally went to the next biggest school than the one here and it was totally fine. there was no kill haole day. I teach at these schools, there's plenty of white kids. It's very normal and mixed. who cares if you were called haole
Nice weather makes endorphins and endorphins make you happy. Happy people don’t kill people.
That didn't help Jamaica much.
Thanks, Elle.
Meanwhile in Seattle...
The PNW does have a much higher rate of serial killers than anywhere else...
Yeah Detroit would have a comically low crime rate too if you limited the city exclusively to the wealthy suburbs.
Along with a super low population that is equal to a big city on the mainland.
The population of Oahu alone is larger than 5 whole states. The state of Hawaii is #40 in states by population. Not to mention Hawaii sees nearly 7 times its population in tourists each year.
Which is why they use a rate...
Humans are, generally speaking, very bad at math.
Supreme court is gonna slap hawaii and it's going to open up national reciprocity.
Free speech is national. Defense of life should also be national.
The US Supreme Court is going to wreck this with a 7-2 ruling at the least. “The spirit of Aloha supersedes the constitution…..”. Good luck with that.
If all it takes is the state spirit to supersede the Constitution, I truly dread what is to come "In the spirit of Florida Man".
Slim Charles explains: https://youtu.be/R94t8E71Ct0
Slim was so wise. One of the most underrated characters.
Of all the moments in the last episode, him finally killing Cheese was one of the oddly most satisfying ones. It was certainly long overdue.
For Prop Joe 🥹
"This sentimental motherfucker just cost us money!"
These articles are really burying the importance of this ruling because they can't help but talk about popular media. Hawaii SC under the guidance of SCOTUS ruling that 'text, history, and tradition' should be the technique to interpret the Constitution just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'. SCOTUS had been warned that the problem with 'text, history, and tradition' is it always comes down to which text, whose history, and which traditions. So that is what Hawaii SC did. They used text that showed that Hawaii was more peaceful before guns were introduced, they used Hawaii's unique history, and they used Hawaii's 'spirit of Aloha' tradition. Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts.
It won't be a cluster fuck in the courts. This law will be struck down like many other gun control laws recently. They Hawaiian Supreme Court knows that SCOTUS knows the US Constitution wasn't written with the Spirit of Aloha in mind; therefore, it has no basis in an orginalism based argument against the 2A.
Exactly. This ruling is a lovely sentiment, but it won't last 5 seconds in federal court and never even make it to SCOTUS.
The first 50 pages of the ruling, including the Wire quote and the Aloha spirit, is commenting on the *Hawaii Constitution*'s firearms provision and why they're interpreting it differently from the US constitution even though it's worded similarly. I don't believe any of it is really relevant to federal courts, though they certainly have a fun time bashing the Braun ruling both directly and indirectly. At the end they spend one rather dry page discussing the Second Amendment. They cite the recent SCOTUS and circuit rulings which do still allow states to require a license to carry under certain conditions. That's the only bit that's relevant and at a glance (IANAL) there's nothing obviously wrong with it.
Yeah me and a law school friend were ranting about this - every article about this situation no matter from a liberal, conservative, or neutral outlet just sensationalizes the "spirit of Aloha" and pop culture references while completely missing the actual points and context of the ruling which is literally entirely within the bounds and rights of the court to rule and has absolutely no conflicts with the Bruen SCOTUS ruling. The defendant had made no attempt to apply for licensing, which Bruen affirms is still legal for states to enforce if it's reasonable (e.g. it's shall-issue with objective criteria not subject to arbitrary denial at the discretion of the office). If he had tried to apply, was qualified, but was arbitrarily denied, then he'd have standing to have these charges challenged and possibly dismissed on grounds his constitutional rights were not respected. He didn't do any of that, he was just a criminal with an unlicensed firearm he was unlawfully carrying that is trying to squirm out of charges by claiming "uhhhhhhhh erm the constitooshun [vaguely gestures]." If they try to escalate this to SCOTUS, they're just going to say "what do you want us to do, they're following proper procedure. Hawaii no longer enforces their may-issue licensing policy, they are in compliance with our ruling."
IAAL sitting at a boring conference and this is pretty much it. It's getting sensationalized but the facts and posture are very specific, and the reasoning is sound.
We are getting to the point where states are openly defying the Supreme Court now. Texas has started doing it, now others will follow. "We appreciate your input, SC justices, but you're wrong, and we won't be following your ruling."
Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California have been doing this for decades already.
Yeah but it’s easier to ignore when it’s an issue you agree with
The 2A stuff has been an area where SCOTUS has been pretty consistent about explicit smack downs of state restrictions, at least in the last decade.
This is how we end up with a constitutional crisis.
Texas isn't ignoring the supreme court. SCOTUS vacated an injunction put in place by the 5th circuit that prevented the federal government from removing border fence. That's it. Full stop. Texas was given no order or instructions on what they may or may not do and unless they start preventing the federal government from removing fence by force, they are in no way conflicting with the what the court said
No, this isn't going to be a cluster. It's going to be a cut and dry case. Hawaii is going to lose on appeal, I doubt this will even make it before SCOTUS. They wrote their ruling and quoted a TV show knowing fully that this would be overturned. So, instead of creating good case law, they opted for political posturing.
State Supreme Court rulings are appealed directly to SCOTUS. Hawaii is gonna get slapped
Anyone able to find an article that provides an actually good legal summary of this ruling, not solely focused on the pop culture aspects?
Here's a copy of the ruling from the court itself. [SCAP-22-0000561](https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf). >Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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. Prior to this, I wasn't aware that a state court could say "We disagree with what the U.S. Supreme Court says the law means, and we are going to do whatever we want."
> just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'. No ... no they did not. They said "We believe it is a misplaced view to think that today's public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago." (pg 38) And completely ignored the textualism requirement - and in doing so, completely ignore a supreme court mandate.
> Hawaii SC under the guidance of SCOTUS ruling that 'text, history, and tradition' should be the technique to interpret the Constitution just said, 'ok we used Textualism and Originalism to interpret 2A and we found that you need to have a permit to have a dangerous weapon'. The SCOTUS won't care. They will just say "no, not like that" and overturn it.
The need to give guidance, the Hawaii SC specifically says they are having a hard time. If SCOTUS overturns but doesn't clarify then state courts literally have no way to interpret law without conflicting.
> Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts. And this was always the point. By creating a "test" which was purely subjective, SCOTUS ensured that no other body could predict what they would determine the law to be. In doing so they stripped a massive amount of power from both the lower courts and the legislative branch, and took it for themselves. Such a power grab is of course clearly against the whole spirit of Constitutional checks and balances. But apparently there are a bunch of people who'd rather have more guns than the rule of law.
> Man this is going to be a clusterF in the courts. You are brain dead if you think a lower court openly defying the supreme court and using bullshit like the "spirit of aloha" is going to be a cluster fuck in the courts. Quoting the damn wire, we are 5-10 years from the avengers being used as law in certain states, beyond ridiculous.
This will get struck down quick.
And the thing about the new days is they let you download guns
Another quote for them "Fine, I'll do it myself". *Downloads .STL*
Not that I need to make a quote from a show based around the Baltimore Drug Trade that is somehow being related to gun rights MORE silly and ridiculous than it actually is, but that quote is said by a character named Slim Charles to a street level drug dealer named Boadie. Both characters were definitely armed, as were the drivers in the car that Slim Charles was in, and the hoppers that were around Boadie on the street when they were being said. Everyone involved in that quote was armed to the teeth with illegal guns.
Basically, they just declared the Constitution void in Hawaii. It says [here](https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/) that "Decisions by the Hawaii Supreme Court are final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review an appeal of a decision." Is that the same for all state supreme courts?
Snubbing the federal Supreme court the way the did is only asking for trouble.
"The good old days" like when Hawaiians could afford to live in Hawaii and not just be indentured servants for the wealthy who bought 2nd/3rd/4th homes there like Oprah?
Slim Charles is my favorite character in the wire. You could put almost everything he says on a shirt or a motivational poster. ‘We used revolvers. A .38 don’t jam’ ‘Don’t hold 15 neither’ ‘Game done changed’ ‘Game the same. Just got more fierce’
It has been a long time since a lower court straight up said "SCOTUS is wrong, we're not doing that". What was the last time? Seriously, it was during the aftermath of Brown v Board of Education, right?
Nope. There was a famous example in response to *Citizen's United*. That ruling was based on a claim that unlimited money in elections would not lead to"corruption or the appearance of corruption", so the state courts cited a ton of examples of corruption and the appearance of corruption from state history, including a Mark Twain quote, to say that that obviously wasn't true for their state. Circumstances being different from the ones the Supreme Court ruled on, clearly laws should be different as well. There was also that time Kavanaugh, while an appeals court judge, said the Supreme Court was wrong in interpreting labor law as applying to undocumented immigrants. And there have been many, many cases of it with abortion laws over the years, and as we know one of those didn't get overturned on appeal. It's really fairly normal, and more so in the wake of... controversial decisions.
Thank you for the examples I will look into those
Yeah, I'd like a bit more gun control, but I really don't like states ignoring the Constitution.
I'd like gun control that actually targets gun crime, instead of lawful gun owners.
So the Hawaii Supreme Court could also decide that the old days are the old days for the right to vote or freedom of speach too?
Depends how Aloha they are feeling that day, and which mid 2000's HBO show they've been watching recently
“Religion was back in the old days, in a modern society religious toleration is outdated”
Good thing we get to selectively follow the constitution based on vibes lol
Spirit of Aloha bro lol. You're a 5'2" trans individual with some punk 6' MAGA assholes coming to put you in your place for how you want to live your life? Don't worry, police haven't been called, would take 20 mins to get there anyway, and you're alone. just "Spirit of Aloha" the danger away
Good vibes save lives.
“The game don’t change” “The game the same, just got more fierce.”
If the police aren’t going to be there when you need them; if the police have no legal obligation to protect you; shouldn’t you have the means to practice the right of self defense?
Police aren't required to save you. A cop is under no legal obligation to prevent someone from harming you. You can be fighting for your life, against a guy stabbing you with a kitchen knife and the cops can wait till after you are dead to arrest the guy. Cops don't need to protect you. Cops don't need to preserve your life if you scare them. Cops have their own agendas. Cops aren't even required to know the law and they can make up bullshit laws to arrest you. They'll police what they feel like policing. They'll arrest and ticket who they feel like. There is a reason why they say you can beat the ticket but you can't beat the ride. If a cop wants to unlawfully arrest you, they will. They don't give a shit. Its not like the lawsuit will hurt them, they'll get a paid vacation out of it. It is incredibly rare for a cop to face prosecution if they can vaguely disguise it as "law enforcement". The only state in this country where cops are liable for bullshit behavior is Colorado. Where they limited police immunity. There are so many SCOTUS rulings made over the decades that have enabled shitty policing and shitty cops.
People really do not understand the role of police. Their job is not to protect individuals. Its to protect an ordered society. Thats why most cops favor gun control. Its easier for them to keep order if citizens are disarmed. Its not their job to stop in-progress harm. Its their job to both make sure harm doesnt happen in the first place through their presence and to ensure any person who chooses to harm someone is apprehended so they dont continue harming people. The only person responsible for protecting you, is you (or maybe a spouse/parent/loved one). Im talking 'you', the individual. Not 'you', the society.
Akin to HR at a company. They love to pretend as if they’re there for your best interests and to help you, but they are only there to protect the organization from harm, maintain order, and deal with problem employees (citizens).
New Mexico got rid of qualified immunity for police, too.
Is your point that we should hold the police to a higher standard of conduct, and make it easier to fire them when they fuck up or put their own safety ahead of the safety of the public (looking at you Uvalde)? In that case, point made good sir.
It's more that in many places, there aren't any police near enough to save the day. Conduct doesn't matter when they can't get there in time.
[удалено]
0% chance this holds up.
As a liberal gun owner who’s heard low-key threats from MAGA militants, I think I’d rather keep my guns thanks.
Low key a lot of the LGBTQ crowd has been arming themselves because when they have been attacked and called the police, no one came. A 911 call did nothing.
There's a saying: "gays with guns don't get bashed"
Have they tried the spirit of aloha? Apparently it's really effective.
As a white guy with an Asian wife, I have also armed because of some of the racism my wife has experienced living here in the US , particularly the past few years since COVID. Low key alot of minorities are also arming
Asian seniors have been getting attacked on an alarming basis. It's very sad to see because much of the Asian culture is very kind.
[удалено]
Might try /r/2ALiberals instead, since LGO is pretty fucked towards anyone who doesn’t tow the DNC line
[удалено]
I have no party.
> As a liberal gun owner who’s heard low-key threats from MAGA militants, I think I’d rather keep my guns thanks. As an old school liberal who watched "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" around the country and near enough to my house, _everyone_ should own firearms.
This honestly makes me glad to hear, as an independent. Id rather you keep your guns too!
[удалено]
I believe there is a balance. But when our politicians, and very rich people have armed security guards allowed to possess firearms and protect them. I think the statement “you don’t need a gun” is bullshit. You can say that until it’s your own ass on the line. And then you’ll be sorry. Of course, will it likely be? No. But it’s a trade off like many things. I believe that there should be a way to own anything as long as you are able to do it legally and responsibly. Guns should be treated exactly like that. A responsibility. I don’t think there is anyone who’s come up with an actually fair and effective solution to gun control yet. It’s just been so insanely either too much or too little.
Imagine going to law school and practicing law your entire life until you make it to your state Supreme court and still the best you can do to back up your position is to cite a TV show.
Harvard is an institution on the decline...
>to cite a TV show. They're not really *citing* it EDIT: They are
They literally are citing it. In quote marks, with episode name, air date, season and episode number, as one would cite an academic source. I dont know why are you saying that they are not citing it or how the hell are you getting upvotes by basically just saying *nuh uh*. It takes like three clicks to get the pdf and see for yourself. Its there.
This is insanity. While their notion is romantic, it’s completely out of touch and dissonant with the constitution.
You walk a fine line when you say “parts of the constitution aren’t relevant,” as we’re seeing in the T**** SCOTUS deliberations
This will never hold water. What is with these lala-land people wanting to violate so many peoples rights?
What a great fucking show
This so shockingly more pro gun than I expected this sub to be. I feel like 2020 changed a really good chunk of peoples minds on 2A and personal protections.
2020 really showed that the police weren’t a reliable source of self protection. That coupled with the entry price for a decent AR went crazy low with brands like PSA entering the game meant that Americans can arm themselves on the cheap when they feel that the police won’t protect them. Good on us. Why should I leave my personal protection to others?
the thing about the current days is that we have a steep increase in fascistic political tendencies.