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

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

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.


• • •

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!


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

Feb 6
Alright, I try and avoid bothering Jake but this is one of our cases. So a quick thread.

For one, the "innovation" in question is an ammunition background check that forces people to pay money each time they buy ammunition, that wrongly denies over 10% of buyers, and of the very few actually prohibited people it catches, the State arrests just 2%. The purpose of this "innovation" seems to be harassing law-abiding gun owners, not stopping crime.
Bruen itself cautions against reliance on pre-founding history, so I don't get how this is arbitrary.

In a reply to a comment on this, Jake asserts that no true originalist would argue a law from 1786 is less persuasive than one from 1787. I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here. Besides one law that was a declaration of rights for protestants, the newest English law the State presented was from 1689. I don't know why anyone would think that particularly relevant.Image
I'm curious what other rights anyone would look at with this framework.

"Well yes but the founders could have restricted religion more if they wanted to!"

Bruen's analogical analysis is the window the state has to go beyond what came before in order to deal with new challenges and new technologies (ammunition buying is neither).

Yes, it is a tough standard. As it should be, this is a constitutional right.Image
Read 9 tweets
Jan 31
OK - after a chaotic (in a good way) morning, it's time I finally read the actual ruling I'd say haha. Love me a Benitez highlights thread!

First thing is first, please support CRPA for making this possible. Join and donate at crpa.org
A big point Judge Benitez made at the hearings I was at was that he thought the original form of Prop 63 was fine. You get a purchase permit relatively affordably, and then it is good for four years.

But CA immediately changed what the voters enacted into something much more abusive.Image
Benitez continues with the background summary. California just can never help itself. Image
Read 15 tweets
Dec 21, 2023
Alright, finally home after being stuck in traffic. We got out of the hearing today around 4 or so, and Judge Carney had issued a ruling less than an hour later. Never had one that quick before, it's a good feeling.

First thing is first, support CRPA, SAF, GOA, GOC, GOF, and LGC for more wins like what we have today in May v. Bonta.

And credit as well to the FPC team for Carralero v. Bonta, who challenged some provisions we did not and scored wins on those as well.

Now going to read through the ruling and post my thoughts as I go.
@slowdowncounsel argued for the May plaintiffs today. I "asked" him to do so (no way I was going to let him say no) both because he is way better than me at oral argument, and based on how well he did in Boland with Judge Carney. He repeated that excellent performance today. While the ruling was clearly drafted and ready to go, he rebutted the State's arguments masterfully and erased any chance of Carney reconsidering his draft.

Our FPC colleagues Brad Benbrook and Steve Duvernay did a great job too.

But really, Judge Carney gave the State about 2/3 of the hearing time. With the benefit of hindsight now knowing the ruling was drafted, I think he was basically giving them a chance to change his mind. They clearly didn't.

Judge Carney's questions were mostly general and philosophical. He asked the State whether it believes there is a general right of self-defense. He also gave the example of court staff being assaulted on public transportation, including one incident where a knife was involved that could have easily turned deadly. He asked whether they should have the right to effective self-defense.

But the actual details of the hearing aren't that important now, because we have a ruling! So let's get to that.
@slowdowncounsel Judge Carney starts from first principles: the natural right of self-defense. Image
Read 30 tweets
Dec 11, 2023
In the past, I had plotted out Giffords grades compared to gun-related homicide rate, and shown there is no correlation between the two. Your state may have a high, low, or medium grade from Giffords, and it has essentially no predictive value as to what your homicide rate will be.

I figured I'd update that for the 2022 data, and because I felt like coloring today, I decided to give a more visual representation.

These are states listed by their gun-related homicide rate in 2022, lowest to highest. The color corresponds to their grade from Giffords for gun control. So:

Green = A
Blue = B
Yellow = C
Orange = D
Red = F

The color includes all the grades in that range. So for example, a state marked with Yellow may have a C-, C, or C+. I could have broken it down further I guess, but this is good enough. The District of Columbia was included as Green because although they aren't graded by Giffords, they have always been a gun control darling that passes everything the antigun side demands.

As can be seen below, there certainly isn't any general shift from green to red that would indicate gun control works. Instead, the grades are all over the place. Having increased amounts of gun control just does not mean you will have less gun-related homicide.

Instead, and as anyone paying attention knows, the differences are clearly regional. Northeastern states, regardless of their gun control laws, generally have low homicide rates. Southern states, regardless of their gun control laws, generally have high homicide rates. And the midwestern and western states are somewhere in between.Image
Here is the Giffords scorecard I used.

Another tactic you'll see is them taking credit for preexisting low homicide rates when a formerly free state passes gun control.

For example, Vermont long was a very progun state, and a perennial contender for lowest homicide rate in the nation. But in recent years, the State has passed some gun control laws, sufficient to go from an F to a C- on Giffords's report card.

Giffords now writes on their page about Vermont: "In recent years, Vermont made enormous progress by enacting universal background checks, passing an extreme risk protection law, raising the minimum age to purchase firearms, and limiting access to large-capacity magazines. In 2021, Vermont had the 13th lowest gun death rate among the states..."

Setting aside the questionable use of "gun deaths" as a measure, the excerpt implies that it is due to these gun control laws that Vermont is doing well. That just isn't the case. The state has always had low homicide.
Read 5 tweets
Dec 8, 2023
Alright, a thread on this ruling, which is massive.

Before reading, I must say that I expected absolutely nothing from this rough panel. In that sense, killing the vampire rule is a big win.

While all portions of these Bruen tantrum laws are awful, the vampire rule is what really made it so that getting a carry permit is pointless, because private businesses are completely unavoidable in day to day life. Only the bans on carrying on public transportation come close to that level of totally killing the right to carry (if you are someone who relies on public transportation).
I am going to skip the background sections and procedural history and jump right to the analysis.

Panel can't help itself, highlights Justice Stevens's dissent to imply there is no individual right. Image
"So we're going to drive a truck through that opening" Image
Read 35 tweets
Dec 4, 2023
@CRPAnews, @GunOwners, @2AFDN, @GunOwnersCA, @GunFoundation are settling all of their scores when it comes to CCW permit issuance in California. We’re taking on the ridiculous wait times of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, the high fees of the La Verne Police Department, and the subjective suitability determinations both of them use, including the psychological exam in La Verne.

Obviously, more than just LASD and LVPD are doing these sorts of things, but with a victory in this case, we hope to set precedent applicable to other issuing authorities with the same unacceptable policies and practices.

But there’s one other big issue too.

No other constitutional right ends at state borders. Yet if you are not a California resident, you have effectively no way to legally carry here, because California does not honor the permits of any other states. Even if you are willing to go through the hassle of getting a California CCW permit, nonresidents are not eligible for one. One of our Plaintiffs is a Florida resident who was denied a permit for that reason. Other plaintiffs are California residents who don’t want to deal with high fees or long wait times in their jurisdiction, but their Utah and Arizona permits are invalid here.

Thus, we are also suing the Attorney General to establish reciprocity. California must honor permits issued by other states, or at absolute minimum, the State must create a timely and affordable avenue for nonresidents to get California CCW permits.

A motion for preliminary injunction will follow in the coming weeks. You can read the complaint here:
This was @Jake_Fogleman's article on La Verne's fees from back in March when we unsuccessfully tried to persuade them to reduce the fees substantially (they only did by a trivial amount). Litigation was the last resort, but here we are.

Read 5 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!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!