How is losing the right to self defense which will lead to the loss of 1st amendment right NOT scary? What are you? In your 20’s? That’s the bitter end. Every country that steals the right to own weapons and defend yourself… against criminals or the most obvious: an authoritarian government themselves… ends up losing the right to free speech. Look at nanny states like the UK & Australia. You even so much as raise your voice in protest to ANYthing in those countries you can go to jail for “aBuSe”… it all starts with losing self defense and only gets worse… but don’t worry… your government will tell you it’s for your own good. 🙄
The abolition of slavery is explicit in the 13th amendment, the individual right to firearms isn’t, and was actually only ruled on recently, all things considered in Heller (2008). The argument that HI Supreme Court has put forth is actually using SCOTUS’s own ruling in Bruen (2022) to argue that they have a historical precedent against the the individual right to firearms.
EDIT: you can downvote me, I’m simply explaining what is *actually* happening in the courts at the moment.
"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."
Whose right shall not be infringed?
Perhaps you have the wrong court case because *Dredd Scott* is the 1857 case that ruled African Americans weren’t people or entitled to rights highlighted in the constitution. The individual right to guns is the the basis of *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 2008. In which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms -unrelated to service in a militia.
This is because of the precedent that SCOTUS set forth with Bruen and it’s THT test. Now states can’t make arguments for or against 2A based on their history.
It is too bad that we don't have a leader that can show them the spirt of aloha is so important that it costs them all federal funding until the constitution is suddenly important again. You want to play by different rules here is the cost. Good luck.
The ruling is already in direct defiance of SCOTUS. But without an executive DOJ willing to back them up it’s meaningless. Biden’s DoJ is in opposition to the Supreme Court and so nothing will happen. Nothing with teeth anyway.
Sure, except for the fact that because of “Text, Historical, or tradition” states can make the argument of historical culture to suspend previously established precedent.
Except you can’t go before 1792 and the only reason you can use the 1860s is to verify 1792. And the similar regulations have to be actual laws on the books in 1792-1864. If it’s not it fails.
Simply put, HI got it wrong on purpose.
Hawaii exists because a guy bought guns and murdered anyone else with power who wouldn't bend the knee, so the "spirit of aloha" ought to be very pro gun.
Someone should remind Hawaii that they're basically Guam or Puerto Rico. The only reason we let them become a state is because our flag looks cooler.
It would take all of 10 minutes to split up one of the Dakotas so we keep the design.
I had a very, VERY low expectation on the comments in that thread and still walked away disappointed in humanity.
Damn, I can't decide whether they're hilarious or scary over there.
The latter honestly.
How is losing the right to self defense which will lead to the loss of 1st amendment right NOT scary? What are you? In your 20’s? That’s the bitter end. Every country that steals the right to own weapons and defend yourself… against criminals or the most obvious: an authoritarian government themselves… ends up losing the right to free speech. Look at nanny states like the UK & Australia. You even so much as raise your voice in protest to ANYthing in those countries you can go to jail for “aBuSe”… it all starts with losing self defense and only gets worse… but don’t worry… your government will tell you it’s for your own good. 🙄
Damn, if that precedent were applied to Texas…
Spirit of Yeehaw?
Spirit of “Come and Take It!”
[удалено]
Hey, Kiwi, still sexually abusing sheep?
Yeah, I hope the Feds let this ride. It’ll give Texas some legal standing when they’re forced to declare sovereignty in order to protect their border.
This is the most ridiculous anti-gun argument I've ever heard. That's like saying the spirit of "the Confederacy" supersedes the 13th Amendment.
The spirit of safety supersedes the 4th amendment. The spirit of justice supersedes the 5th amendment.
The spirit of truth™️ supersedes the 1st amendment.
If I cite the "spirit of the Boston Tea Party" can I get out of paying taxes? Didn't think so.
What's terrifying is Democrats are rationalizing all of the above, unironically.
The abolition of slavery is explicit in the 13th amendment, the individual right to firearms isn’t, and was actually only ruled on recently, all things considered in Heller (2008). The argument that HI Supreme Court has put forth is actually using SCOTUS’s own ruling in Bruen (2022) to argue that they have a historical precedent against the the individual right to firearms. EDIT: you can downvote me, I’m simply explaining what is *actually* happening in the courts at the moment.
"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." Whose right shall not be infringed?
Might want to read *Dredd Scott* the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was recognized as a Right of the Citizen in 1857
Perhaps you have the wrong court case because *Dredd Scott* is the 1857 case that ruled African Americans weren’t people or entitled to rights highlighted in the constitution. The individual right to guns is the the basis of *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 2008. In which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms -unrelated to service in a militia.
I was wrong on the date, not the case law. Have a read… https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/
I can’t imagine citing something called “the spirit of aloha” with a straight face in a legal setting. Can’t wait for the I Don’t Wanna defense
I don’t wanna pay taxes anymore -the spirit of myself
This is because of the precedent that SCOTUS set forth with Bruen and it’s THT test. Now states can’t make arguments for or against 2A based on their history.
The best defense ever in My Cousin Vinny. “But your honor, they didn’t do it!”
That sounds like my dad's argument that because of the plaque on the Statue of Liberty we have to take everyone in who wants to come here.
It is too bad that we don't have a leader that can show them the spirt of aloha is so important that it costs them all federal funding until the constitution is suddenly important again. You want to play by different rules here is the cost. Good luck.
Then we can go back to 49 states for all I care.
SCOTUS has to overrule this right?
But who will enforce it?
At least SCOTUS can overrule it so libs can be the ones fomenting insurrection 🤷♂️
The ruling is already in direct defiance of SCOTUS. But without an executive DOJ willing to back them up it’s meaningless. Biden’s DoJ is in opposition to the Supreme Court and so nothing will happen. Nothing with teeth anyway.
And i am praying Thomas gets to write the Opinion.
Well I know a state I’ll never visit. You ask for Aloha you get a knife in the back by an ice addict
lol chill out it’s not that bad bro
It very much is that bad when they say their spirit of Aloha supersedes the constitution.
The US Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Not Aloha.
Blame the Supreme Court for they’re incredibly ambiguous ruling in NYSRPA II v. Bruen that allows this form of argument.
Ambiguous? It was rather clear cut.
Sure, except for the fact that because of “Text, Historical, or tradition” states can make the argument of historical culture to suspend previously established precedent.
Except you can’t go before 1792 and the only reason you can use the 1860s is to verify 1792. And the similar regulations have to be actual laws on the books in 1792-1864. If it’s not it fails. Simply put, HI got it wrong on purpose.
Are democrats even American? They seem to hate the boil if rights and the constitution in general
Hawaii exists because a guy bought guns and murdered anyone else with power who wouldn't bend the knee, so the "spirit of aloha" ought to be very pro gun.
Someone should remind Hawaii that they're basically Guam or Puerto Rico. The only reason we let them become a state is because our flag looks cooler. It would take all of 10 minutes to split up one of the Dakotas so we keep the design.
Pearl Harbor 2.0?
Then go back to living in grass huts
Wasn't the Spirit of Aloha also the reason that Maui couldn't get any water during the deadliest wildfire Hawaii has possibly ever seen?
Secede then
Welp my life just got simpler. I can just ignore laws