Hawaii Senate hates Individual Rights.

The Hawaii Senate introduced a measure petitioning the US Congress to modify or repeal the Second Amendment so it is amended or removed.

But what called my attention was at the beginning of the measure:

“Individual Right theory”I can feel the dismissiveness and disgust of whomever wrote this for what we peons believe in. It is like “Fuck the little people, I don’t wanna see them unless I need to refill my Mai Tai.”

Mind you, the phrasing is on purpose: they are after all the rights, not just the Second Amendment. But the 2A does get in the way to annul the rest of the rights.  It is always hard to fill the boxcars going East when the passengers announce their refusal by volleys of projectiles

Remember the principle: If they hate the Second amendment, there is a good chance they are not fond of the rest of the Bill Of Rights.


26 Replies to “Hawaii Senate hates Individual Rights.”

  1. They hate that their power is checked by the Constitution and want the Constitution changed to give them unlimited power. These people make it more clear every day why they shouldn’t be trusted with power.

    Also, maybe AOC is right and we need to end air travel to Hawaii and let them build a high speed rail to the mainland.

    1. @ Geoff I see this said and written numerous times in various forms, ” the 2nd ammendment will stay”; however, we here in California know how precarious it is. The left is chipping away at it little by little. The time will come, if we are not vigilant, the 2A will just be words written in paper. We should not let our faith be replaced by complacency and fight each attack on the 2A as it was the last.

      1. And Oregon is not chipping; they’re effectively trying to shatter it entirely.

        Some options currently on the table (as in, bills have been introduced in the Legislature; and this is off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list):
        – One-gun-per-month purchase limit
        – 10-day waiting period
        – 5-round magazine limit, including fixed magazines
        – 10-round magazine limit (different bill)
        – 20-round-per-month purchase limit
        – “Assault weapon” ban, with a “one-feature” test, including thumb-hole stocks
        – Semi-auto ban (different bill; covers ALL semi-autos except some fixed-magazine shotguns)
        – Remove CHL exemption for carrying on public school campuses
        – Increase the fee the State Police can charge to run background checks (comes up every year; may actually pass this time)

        On that last: they outlawed private transfers a few years ago. OSP currently charges $10 per background check (in addition to whatever the FFL charges to handle the transaction). Most proposed bills to raise the fee seek to make it $27 or $30 instead.

        On the list in general: Democrats have a super-majority in the House and a clear majority in the Senate (not veto-proof, but it hardly matters; read on). And the Democrat Governor has indicated she’ll sign any “gun control” bills that cross her desk.

    2. Behind every blade of grass is an American Citizen with a gun, and to defend the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. Welp blades of grass, seems like we have ourselves some domestic enemies. Anyone up for a little target practice?

  2. Note also the claim that the amendment “created” a right. Anyone with half a functioning brain knows that it did no such thing — it protects a natural right. For that matter, it’s technically redundant, as Madison stated, since the other parts of the Constitution do not grant Congress any power to infringe that right in the first place. The 2nd Amendment exists because Constitution skeptics doubted that was good enough and wanted it explicit. And subsequent history showed them to be quite justified in that worry.
    The Supreme Court said this plainly:

    The right there [ in the 2nd Amendment ] specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

    (U. S. v. Cruikshank)

  3. “WHEREAS, Some believe …” Among those who believe that the second amendment PROTECTS an individual right is the Supreme Court of the United States.

    1. And “some believe” the Earth is flat (look up FES, the “Flat-Earth Society”), but we’re not (yet) trying to prohibit public schools from teaching the heliocentric model of the solar system, are we?

  4. Remember that Hawaii wanting to change the second amendment means nothing. Or less.

    Just like any state wanting to change any part of the constitution. There’s a process for this and that ain’t it!

  5. So they want to amend the 2nd Amendment to clarify its meaning.

    I’m game. Here’s my suggestion:
    Neither Congress, nor the Legislatures of the several States or territories subject to the Constitution of the United States, may enact any law which abridges or limits in any way whatsoever the individual Right of the People to keep and bear Arms; all such laws, statutes, regulations, and orders shall be null and void.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    1. To follow up:

      “WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional….”

      Nice of them to give the “why” for this resolution, as well as the “what”. They want to enact “prohibitory and restrictive regulation” for “prohibiting firearm possession”, but they know the U.S. Constitution and its 2nd Amendment bar them from doing so.

      Never let anyone tell you nobody wants to take your guns. Here we have a State legislative body saying they want to do exactly that.

    2. Yes, that would be very clear indeed.

      And it would be ignored by all three branches of the government, just as essentially all of the the Constitution is ignored, shat upon, and shredded by them and has been since the ink on it was still wet.

  6. Boycott HI, we sold our condos, our family in Australia will never stop there ,we here in AZ will never go there again. Our yearly expenditure in the HI economy was near $10,000.
    Secede if you don’t like the US and its Constitution, the rest of us do like and love it.

    Alan Carnell

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.