Defensive Carry banner

2nd Amendment Rights Not for Individuals?!

2K views 25 replies 19 participants last post by  TC_FLA 
#1 ·
Apparently not in Hawaii.

A friend of mine sent me this wake-up piece from the 50th State...

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2327500b-7aa5-4453-95a8-0bf47fbcf8d5

The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel, on 15 September 2007, initiated a "Motion to Dismiss" based on the following: "2. Young's lack of facts to support a cognizable legal theory also mandates dismissal of his Complaint. Young has no Second Amendment right to bear arms ... "the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective" rather than an individual right.

"Moreover, since the Second Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use, Young lacks standing to challenge Section 134, HRS."


Oh my,
:sheep::sheep::sheep:
 
#2 ·
It is FRIGHTENING that anyone connected with the legal profession could issue such an opinion--stating that the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with an individual right--given so much, well, PROOF that such an interpretation is nonsense and fraud.

The thing that makes it frightening is that the attorneys presenting this either a) do not understand the 2nd Amendment, or b) do understand it, but are perpetrating a legal fraud by deliberately misstating the amendment's meaning and significance. And I assume that the Hawaii County Corporation Counsel is an entity that works on behalf of the state or local government there.

Either case is completely unacceptable. :mad:
 
#3 ·
Hopefully the upcoming SCOTUS decision will change that false belief. The outcome will have a far reaching impact whatever the decision is.
 
#4 ·
wow. talk about a pre-concieved verdict. I worry about hawaii.
 
#5 ·
If the Supreme Court does hear the DC case and rules it is an individual right then this will change
 
#6 ·
This REALLY frightens me because my wife is going to graduate from Nursing school in May and commission as a 2LT in the Army and it is quite possible that we will be stationed in Hawaii. This sucks!
 
#10 ·
If so don't bring any hi-caps (that can fit in a pistol) tazers, CN spray, auto knives, "assault pistol" (yeah-yeah no such thing), cans, SBR...I believe that even the military stationed there must register private weapons.

Anther friend moved there from TX, he had to dump his MP5, SP-1:embarassed:

But there is less crime there with those lo-crime mags!:mad:
 
#7 ·
If the Supreme Court does hear the DC case and rules it is an individual right then this will change
Unfortunately that's probably not true. The DC case is about the right to own and possess within your house, while this Hawaii mess is about carrying (concealed or otherwise). If SCOTUS rules on DC they will not extend into the carry aspect since that was not part of the initial suit.

If they did then I believe that falls into judicial activism which even when it goes in our favor is still wrong.
 
#8 ·
While this is true, I think the important part will be the reasoning behind the opinion. If SCOTUS upholds Parker and justifies its reasoning with an individual rights 2A, that could reach well past simple possession in the home.

I cannot see them making any direct statements on CC (and rightly so, as you pointed out), but future cases may be brought that use their reasoning as precedent.
 
#11 ·
This illustrates one of the fallacies of democracy (small d). You have a very antagonistic population of gun haters in Hawaii and also a very substantial crime rate. Rape and violence are rather high for this paradise. The numbers in Honolulu compare with Atlanta, GA and Detroit, MI. These crimes might be reduced by a concealed carry law. There are plenty of guns in Hawaii but most are owned by the crooks. It is always so in places that use democracy, and fear to control people. Fear is conjured up by the newsmedia.
 
#14 ·
If the SCOTUS were to go to the extra length of stating the 2A is clearly a right possessed by the individual, as originally written and intended I do not see how that it can be construed as judicial activism.
You are right that SCOTUS will essentially be determining if the 2A is a individual right vs. collective right, which I'm sure we all agree its the former. However, they will not go the extra length to determine anything on the constitutionality of the carrying of firearms since the case is strictly related to the DC law that bans the ownership of handguns.

And I agree with previously stated opinions that a ruling in our favor from SCOTUS of the individual's right to possess firearms would be a monumental building block for our right as it applies to other aspects, such as concealed carry. As this relates to the original thread, Hawaii would have to change there reasoning of denying an applicant the right to carry assuming SCOTUS rules in favor of Parker.
 
#16 ·
Well I don't know about that. I'm a lawyer and take a back seat to no one in terms of defending our Second Amendment rights and am as anti gun control as one can possibly be.

It is wrong and sometimes dangerous to paint with too broad a brush.

Ron
 
#21 ·
Here's the deal: it is not SCOTUS that will necessarily render the correct opinion; It was DC that claimed the 2A was a collective right, and therefore could not be applied in the Parker case. What has caused many constitutional scholars like Levinson to weigh in on this is the disturbing trend amongst the "activist" judges is to water down the "individualistic" portions of the constitution. Once you start chipping away at the individual protections, it gets easier to slide down the slippery slope to oblivion, and I think these constitutional scholars, for all their liberal or conservative views regardless of which side of the issue they fall upon realize this, and are willing to file briefs on behalf of the court and the plaintiffs citing historical evidence and legal precedent to aid the justices in rendering a decision.

let us Hope......
 
#23 ·
Hawaii is part of the 9th Circuit and the motion to dismiss is based on the caselaw for that circuit. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 803 (2003).

Let us all remember that the 9th circuit is the most overturned circuit of them all, and I can foresee the motion to dismiss being granted, an appeal filed and the case worming its way up to the Supreme Court.

As to Parker influencing this case, that depends on the decision in Parker.

Its going to be interesting to see what comes of this, but I'm not going to place bets just yet...
 
#25 ·
Here's the way I could see SCOTUS ruling:

As the phrase "keep and bear arms" is an inseparable condition, such as that one cannot reasonably exist without the other, and since "the people" mentioned in many of the Bill of Rights refers to individual citizens, we hold that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns is unconstitutional, and that the citizens of the District of Columbia, as well as all United States citizens, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding reasonable denials based on age, mental defect or status as convicted felons.

With such a conclusion, and since there were no laws forbidding concealed carry in colonial days, this should prove that carrying (bearing) a concealed weapon without a permit is constitutional.

But I'm an optimist.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top