SCOTUS Passes On Chance To Overturn Hawaii Second Amendment Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review a decision by Hawaii’s highest court that seemingly contradicts established Second Amendment interpretations.
Recently, the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed key rulings on the Second Amendment set by the nation’s highest court, arguing that the “spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
“In Hawaii, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public,” the court, dominated by liberal justices, stated.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that addressing the lower court’s error “must await another day.”
Thomas, alongside Alito and Neil Gorsuch, expressed disapproval of Hawaii’s ruling but acknowledged they could not review the case at this moment. They clarified that the defendant, Christopher Wilson, has outstanding legal proceedings. Wilson was apprehended in 2017 for trespassing on private property while carrying an unlicensed firearm.
“Wilson moved to dismiss only some of his charges, most notably leaving for trial a trespassing charge on which his Second Amendment defense has no bearing,” Thomas explained in his statement, co-signed by Alito. “He thus seeks review of an interlocutory order over which we may not have jurisdiction.”
Still, Thomas pointed out that if Hawaii’s highest court had followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedent, it “would have deemed the state’s licensing regulations unconstitutional and supported the dismissal of Wilson’s public-carry charges.”
“I agree with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this posture,” he added. “In an appropriate case, however, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.”
Gorsuch, in a separate statement, signaled that the issue could be re-examined if Hawaii’s highest court maintains its stance as the case advances.
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear a challenge regarding the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The ruling was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
“The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” SCOTUS Blog reported.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.”
Referring to how lower courts have applied the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts explained, “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”
Otherwise, he stated, the Second Amendment would only cover “muskets and sabers.”
“Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”
The Supreme Court also made headlines the same month by unanimously rejecting a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory authority over an abortion-related medication.
In a 9-0 ruling, justices determined that challengers lacked legal standing to contest the FDA’s approval process for the abortion pill mifepristone, marking a significant victory for the Biden administration and abortion rights advocates.