Quoted:
Awesome.  While I'm sure they will ignore it, this should also affect NYs new CC laws.

Quoted:
Now, hopefully, we can get movement on Duncan and the others.

It would be nice to see a set of per curium decisions for the win, but I'm not hopeful for that.

Quoted:
This will ruffle some feathers


Hawaii also relies on an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of
the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless
against attacks. As the Court laid out in McDonald, the right to keep
and bear arms was crucially important for vulnerable blacks during
this period.

Quoted:
There needs to be criminal consequences for those writing legislation that violates the constitution.

Quoted:
Hawaii also relies on an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of
the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless
against attacks. As the Court laid out in McDonald, the right to keep
and bear arms was crucially important for vulnerable blacks during this period.
"This was
well-understood by the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for drafting, approving, and securing the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment."

Quoted:
In before Hawaii passes even stricter laws that will take 8 years in court to be overturned

Quoted:
Also, regardless of your opinion on Trump, we can thank him for this court. Since election 1, I said as long as we get some appointments it was worth it (and I have the receipts to prove it).

This *is* what I voted for.

Now do AWBs next.

The Second Amendment cannot give way to “the spirit of
Aloha” in Hawaii, contra, State v. Wilson, 154 Haw. 8, 27, 543 P. 3d
440, 459, any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple
(Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate
the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Quoted:
Also, regardless of your opinion on Trump, we can thank him for this court. Since election 1, I said as long as we get some appointments it was worth it (and I have the receipts to prove it).

This *is* what I voted for.

Now do AWBs next.

Quoted:
NY has a similar rule that everywhere is a default no carry zone, although I think that already got shot down by a lower court. NY does have an extensive list of no gun areas that make it pretty tough to legally carry

Quoted:
Why was it called the vampire rule?

Quoted:
Why was it called the vampire rule?

Quoted:
And Hawaii will just continue to say that it isnt in the spirit of aloha.

Quoted:
To use a Cuban analogy...Hawaii will wipe its ass with the USSC's ruling.

They'll simply go back to the drawing board and come up with a new way to restrict guns and wait until the SC rules against them again. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's like a game to them.

Quoted:
Now they should toss the politicians who passed the unconstitutional law into a volcano.

Quoted:
This should take the piss out of NY's similar update in response to Bruen. Good news.

Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
The court holds that the Hawaii law is unconstitutional


Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders
from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without
the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 13–24.

(a) The restrictions imposed by Hawaii’s challenged law fall within
the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively
unconstitutional. No party disputes that petitioners are among “the
people” protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to “bear”
“Arms.” Therefore, “the plain text of the Second Amendment protects”
what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense. Bruen,
597 U. S., at 32. To be sure, owners of establishments that are open to
the public can admit or exclude persons who are carrying guns for self
defense under either the common-law rule or Hawaii’s law. But
Hawaii’s shift from the common-law rule unquestionably imposes a
new and significant burden on the exercise of the right recognized in
Bruen. For example, proprietors who do not object to entry by carry
permit holders may be reluctant to post welcoming signs for fear of
alienating customers. So under Hawaii’s new default rule, a proprietor
in this category may only be willing to consent discreetly to the entry
of permit holders who make the effort to inquire. This arrangement
imposes a new burden on permit holders who will have to somehow
obtain permission to carry a firearm on the property before stepping
foot on it. The law severely hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens
to exercise the right Bruen recognized as they go about their daily
lives. Pp. 13–16.

(b) Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues do not support the constitutionality of its new default rule. Pp. 16–24.

(1) Hawaii’s argument that its “particular customs and laws,”
Brief for Respondent 24, support the new default rule fails because the
Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United
States. The Second Amendment cannot give way to “the spirit of
Aloha” in Hawaii, contra, State v. Wilson, 154 Haw. 8, 27, 543 P. 3d
440, 459, any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple
(Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate
the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pp. 16–19.

(2) The State’s colonial and early state law analogues consist almost entirely of laws that prohibited unauthorized hunting of deer or
small game on someone else’s private property. These laws—including
a 1721 Pennsylvania law, 1722 New Jersey statute, 1728 Maryland
statute, 1763 New York law, and 1771 New Jersey law—targeted unauthorized hunting and applied to land where game could be found,
not retail establishments that residents frequent as part of their daily
routines. Those laws had little if any impact on the Second Amendment’s central objective of protecting
the fundamental right to self-defense, and their obvious aim was to prevent the distinctive harms and
risks associated with unauthorized hunting. The gap between the
State’s anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is too wide. Pp. 19–
22.

(3) The State’s remaining analogues are even weaker. An 1893
Oregon law prohibited armed trespass on “enclosed premises,” but it is
unclear whether such premises included commercial establishments
open to the public. Regardless, a lone statute adopted nearly a century
after the adoption of the Second Amendment and well after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment sheds little if any light on the
meaning of the Second Amendment right.

Hawaii also relies on an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of
the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless
against attacks. As the Court laid out in McDonald, the right to keep
and bear arms was crucially important for vulnerable blacks during
this period. See 561 U. S., at 757, 771, 776–779; id., at 843–846
(THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). This was
well-understood by the Republicans in Congress who were responsible
for drafting, approving, and securing the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Against this history, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact from Louisiana’s Black Code illuminates
the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.
And even setting aside this statute’s pedigree, it carries no weight because it was neither widespread nor widely accepted. Pp. 22–24.

Quoted:
Why was it called the vampire rule?

Quoted:


I was always confused by your desire to live there.



The US Constitution, as well as SCOTUS, is in violation of the Aloha Spirit.