2nd Amendment Rights Not for Individuals?!

[DirtDawg]

Apparently not in Hawaii.

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

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....8-0bf47fbcf8d5

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,

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[peacefuljeffrey]

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.

[ronwill]

Hopefully the upcoming SCOTUS decision will change that false belief. The outcome will have a far reaching impact whatever the decision is.

[Bob The Great]

wow. talk about a pre-concieved verdict. I worry about hawaii.

[rabywk]

If the Supreme Court does hear the DC case and rules it is an individual right then this will change

[Eddie A.]

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!

[500Mag]

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.

[Bob The Great]

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.

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.

[ronwill]

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.

I'm hoping that speakers, such as the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, etc., bring the right to keep and bear arms into the discussion. As a minimum the decision should be as an individual right and opening it up for further arguments.

[DirtDawg]

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!

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

But there is less crime there with those lo-crime mags!

[Sam Douthit]

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.

[cphilip]

...important to keep in mind that is just a "motion to dismiss" and not the final hearing on that Hawaii case. Does not get heard until November. Still hope for George to prove his point and win. Go George!

[Musketeer]

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.

I don't know if I agree on this one. I too oppose judicial activism but I think we have different understandings of what it is.

I consider judicial activism to be the rending of decisions with the goal of attaining a social change in accordance with the jurist's personal belief's and irregardless of the clear intent or wording of the law in question.

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. There is no reason I know of that the SCOTUS cannot state their position on a point of law prior to a perfect case reaching them. Tradition opposes it but not the law. Now the statement would not have the weight of a decisions but it could certainly be used as guidance in lower court rulings on the issue in question.

[500Mag]

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.

[TC_FLA]

Just goes to show you, Judges and lawyers are not for yor rights.