Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 7 33 tweets 12 min read Read on X
The Hawaii Supreme Court released a ruling that sounds like Everytown wrote it for them. They say Heller was wrongly decided, and talk about the historical tradition of the former Kingdom of Hawaii as if that is at all relevant.

A lowlights thread. Image
Note that this "crime" occurred pre-Bruen, when Hawaii had never issued any permit to anyone. So it's insane the State gets to argue he should have applied for a CCW permit.Image
Again, before Bruen, Hawaii had never issued a CCW permit to ANYONE. It's insane that the State Supreme Court says he should have done a futile act back in 2017 to have standing. Image
They look at the Hawaii constitution first. But it's the same thing.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959). Image
Hawaii's Supreme Court rehashes tired collective right arguments which the Supreme Court has expressly rejected, and overwhelming amounts of historical evidence confirm to be false (see my pinned thread, among other sources). Image
Nonsense. If it meant just "people in a militia", it would have said that. Like everywhere else "the People" is mentioned, we are talking about individual rights or protections. Image
Scalia debunked this in Heller. "Bearing arms" means military service, sure. But "to keep and bear arms" would make no sense if it was referring to just military service. Like Scalia said, it would be like interpreting "he stood up and kicked the bucket" to mean "he stood up and died."Image
This is hilarious because the Hawaii constitution was adopted in the 1950s. If the court is correct and it's just some militia right, why would that still be relevant by the mid-20th century, with our massive standing army? Why did Hawaii bother adding the provision? Image
This is not true. The individual right was implicitly confirmed in Dredd Scott and Cruikshank. Terrible rulings for other reasons, but they both confirm in passing the thinking around 2A at the time. An individual right, albeit one that only limited the federal government until after 14th amendment incorporation.Image
Do you think they even realize that their legislative history excerpt destroys their own argument? If the Hawaii framers were intending a collective right, they wouldn't be talking about "reasonable restrictions on the right of the people". They'd say they can pass anything they want, as this is just about the right to a state militia.Image
Same thing here. This literally says "the right to acquire, keep or bear firearms..."!!!! Yes, maybe the 1950s Hawaii legislature had a muscular view of what gun control was allowed, including banning certain guns, but they still presuppose some individual right.

Is the Hawaii Supreme Court's reading comprehension nonexistent.Image
Oh sure, "clarified" 18 years later, in a way that is completely incompatible with what the legislature of 1950 said. Here, they say it's all about the militia, whereas in the excerpts from 1950 that the court cited, there was no discussion of the militia. Just an individual right, albeit one subject to regulations.

What actually happened here is Hawaii politicians adopted the then-ascendant "militia right" lie.Image
Woah WHAT?!

This is an outright lie. Even if you argue stuff like Dred Scott and Cruikshank are dicta because they only mention 2A in passing, there were several 19th century state court rulings confirming to various degrees the individual right.Image
Jesus Christ, the arrogance here is off the charts. "This is what everyone thought."

No, it's what a cabal of hack academics and their well-to-do judicial allies gaslit the nation into believing for a few decades.

The Hawaii Supreme Court basically pretends all the 19th century rulings and commentary do not exist. Their example of "courts always ruled this way" was two rulings from the 1940s.Image
Saul Cornell cite, because of course.

Also, cool how they cite Federalist No. 46, but omit the sentence which reads "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...."

Do they think Madison meant that the "advantage" spoken of there was the right to serve in a government militia? Because people in other nations definitely had that "right" too.Image
OK so again, if this is all true, and the 2A is just about militias, what goal was the 1950 legislature trying to accomplish by copying it into the Hawaii constitution? What was the point of doing that at a time when state militias didn't really exist anymore? Image
It is hilarious that they keep saying what the 1950 Hawaii legislature meant through what the legislature 18 years later said.

Because the two times they actually cited the 1950 framers, they were clearly talking about an individual right.Image
WARREN BURGER QUOTE!

The hackery is unprecedented. This is written by antigun twitter, basically.

As my pinned thread demonstrates, Warren Burger was a liar, ignorant, or both. Image
Who cares what "a majority of historians" think? Most of these are activists masquerading as unbiased historians. For example, almost none of them ever seriously discuss the overwhelming amount of nineteenth century commentary, because it obliterates their arguments. They pretend it doesn't exist.Image
This is another bullshit post-Bruen criticism. Nobody is saying judges have to be historians. They merely have to take historical laws the state presents and see if they are sufficiently similar to modern laws. Analyzing laws is a judge's whole job. Image
We get it, you guys hate the Supreme Court.

This should be the easiest cert petition ever. Image
Notice how they say 1791 and 1868, but then only talk about guns from 1791. Because if they talked about guns from 1868, their argument would fall apart. By 1868, revolvers had proliferated. Much of the gun crime we see today was possible with the weapons of 1868. So even if you think 1791 shouldn't count because guns were so much more primitive, a lot of that gap was erased by 1868.Image
Here they cite the Bevis court's error (at least I hope it wasn't intentional) that a semiatuo AR15 has a fire rate of 300 rounds per minute. Which is five rounds every second. Image
Sounds like the Hawaii Supreme Court doesn't even want to be a part of the United States, in this rejection of not just the Second Amendment but their culture and understanding of the Constitution. Image
They are about to get into the history of Hawaii. Before going into that, I wanted to share an old post I did about when Hawaii became part of the US. Basically, they had to abandon laws that were inconsistent with the US constitution, but could keep the rest. Some of the laws that had to be abandoned? See below.

Tough shit. You are part of the United States. Image
So to be clear, in its analysis of the Hawaii right to bear arms provision, which is identical to the federal one and was adopted by the Hawaii legislature in 1950, the Hawaii Supreme Court looks to the history of Hawaii when it was a foreign nation.

Cool. Image
Ah yes, "The Law of the Splintered Paddle".

What the hell is this court talking about right now? They complained judges are now historians, but they are now giving an irrelevant history lesson from a time when Hawaii wasn't part of the US? Image
Ya, that's cool. The British tried to do the same in the 1770s. Image
The Hawaii Supreme Court cites to the Young case, which omitted that Hawaii had to get rid of certain gun control laws to become a state. That they partially reimplemented them later is irrelevant - the draconian form of these laws was seen at the end of the 19th century as incompatible with our constitution.Image
OK.

What's the process by which we can turn states into territories again? Image
Once again, at the time this man was charged, no one had ever gotten a CCW permit in Hawaii.

It's completely abdication of the judicial role to ignore this, unless the petitioner never brought it up, which I find unlikely. Image
I hope the poor guy dealing with all this nonsense files a cert petition. What a preposterous ruling by a bench of antigun activists.

You can read the whole dumpster fire here.

drive.google.com/file/d/17KDCuf…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kostas Moros

Kostas Moros Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MorosKostas

May 21
It's kinda interesting how the Sears catalog often advertised guns for pocket carry. This one is from 1901.

"Expert" historians for the state like to claim that carry was uncommon in the 19th century. The large amount of ads boasting a handgun could be carried concealed seem to go against those claims.

Also amusing: Colts were by far the most expensive, and apparently did Apple-style price protection. In its Colt section, Sears complains Colt won't let them list the pistols any lower.Image
Image
Image
The old Sears catalogs are a ton of fun to look through, and not just for guns.

archive.org/details/catalo…
Some pricing reference-

According to an inflation calculator, that $1.50 pistol would be $55 today. The Colt pocket revolver would set you back the equivalent of $405.
Read 13 tweets
Apr 30
A short thread on the GOA/GOF reply brief. Image
Prepared by the excellent @Stambo2A, Rob Olson, and Oliver Krawczyk. We work with them on several cases and it is always a pleasure.
@Stambo2A On top of all this, it also is of no benefit to anyone for trial to proceed on the Seventh Circuit's erroneous test. At minimum, if the Court won't resolve this now, they should kick it back to 7COA with instructions to scrap their garbage "military" test. Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 16
Disappointing, if not at all unexpected decision. I’m not doing a full thread right now, but some especially erroneous portions.

Such as claiming that Teter said something outlandish and out of step, when it’s actually what THE SUPREME COURT SAID. Teter was just quoting the Supreme Court, as this acknowledges by mentioning (but ignoring) Heller. Incredible.Image
There is no other right in the original Bill of Rights for which the “operative period” is the reconstruction era.

Paging @fourboxesdiner Image
@fourboxesdiner Given I won’t have many nice things to say about this ruling, I’ll praise this footnote. Image
Read 20 tweets
Mar 8
California has filed its reply in May and Carralero, so here's a thread on some of my thoughts.

You can read it here:

Starting off, I won't speak for the Carralero plaintiffs, but our point was that such security is an indication of what government truly considers to be sensitive, as opposed to things it claims in bad faith are sensitive in order to restrict carry.drive.google.com/file/d/1hs8JXk…Image
Bruen demands representative historical laws. If there are only a few outliers, then they are not representative of our historical tradition. Image
I don't even know what to tell them here besides to go read Bruen.

This seems to just be adopting the Second Circuit's poor analysis that Bruen doesn't apply unless the violation is blatant, or something. Image
Read 20 tweets
Mar 7
Circuit Courts could not give less of a shit that the Supreme Court said interest balancing analysis is not appropriate. They are doing it anyway, and blatantly.

Will SCOTUS do anything about it?
Image
All their historical analogues are from the 20th century, except for bowie knife laws. But those were carry laws, not possession bans. Image
This is so misleading. Lots of states had concealed carry restrictions on bowie knives and other weapons, yes. A few taxed them. One or two banned sales. But as David Kopel explained in his article on this topic, no state banned bowie knife possession by the end of the 19th century.Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 22
The first of the three CRPA vs. LASD oppositions is in, from La Verne. Two more expected today from LASD and the Attorney General.

Granted I have my bias, but I am not impressed with this brief in the least. They cite almost no caselaw to support them, and their argument boils down to "other cities are doing it so we can too!".

On the psych exam, they don't address any of the points we made about why this particular exam is especially abusive, requiring a drive of an hour each way, only on weekdays.
The DOJ brief is in now too, and I'm still reading through it, but it's interesting that they spend a lot of time justifying the idea of permits as a concept. That's not really our argument here. their point seems to be that local regulation is allowed, but California doesn't even provide a pathway for nonresidents to get a permit, let alone honor permits of other states.
Additionally, when you read through the historical examples of local permitting laws in the Spitzer declaration, almost all pertained only to concealed carry only. And all were from after the civil war.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(