Hawaii: That’s not something you see every day

Some Hawaiian legislators have entered a most interesting bill.


Stripped to basics, it calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, under the guise of “clarification.” Because…

“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” (emphasis added)

Their argument is that the individual rights “theory” currently — and correctly — held by the Supreme Court makes all their gun control victim-disarming people control laws unconstitutional.

No kidding. All else aside, you’d think they’d have noticed the separate usage of “people” (when talking about… people) and “states” and “congress” in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps they’re public school graduates and were unaware that the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted as a single document.

I was also amused by their claim that the MILLER case declared the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Yep, gotta be public school victims.

No. What MILLER did was merely say that in the absence of evidence that sawed-off shotguns are useful militarily, they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

In fact, in describing militias, the Court specified that it is composed of individual civilians called up for service (and carefully differentiated the militia from government “troops” in regular service). What’s more, those called up for militia service are expected to appear with their own personal weapons. Which, by necessity, they’d have to own before and separately from militia service.

That’s about as individual as it gets. And a strict read of MILLER suggests that those in the militia could be required to own military-grade firearms. (I don’t go that far, but only maintain they must be able to acquire them in time for a call-up.)

The collective right theory of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent invention of gun controllers. It has never been held by the Supreme Court, which always recognized it as a right of individual people. It even factored into the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856, with the majority maintaining that if Scott were recognized as a citizen then he — as an individual — would have the right to bear arms and all other enumerated rights.

I very much hope Hawaii passes this bill. Imagine anyone busted for breaking the state’s gun laws walking into court and declaring, “Your Honor, even the State says this is unconstitutional.”

Ah, but so long as we’re talking about MILLER…

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

TL;DR: Short-barreled shotguns can be regulated under the National Firearms Act because they weren’t shown to be suitable for military use.

I believe that is why the Supreme Court has never granted certiorari for a direct challenge to the NFA since MILLER. NFA items, under that ruling, are things that are not used by the military. Except… machineguns certainly are. And gun controllers whine about “military-grade” or “military-style” “assault weapons.” SCOTUS doesn’t really want to touch that.

Which is probably why the Court keeps granting extensions on the petition for cert in the Kettler NFA challenge. Their cert decision was due in February; they granted two extensions, making it — so far — due by April 22, 2019.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

3 thoughts on “Hawaii: That’s not something you see every day”

  1. 9th amendment;

    “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Our constitution can enumerate rights but it can not give us nor take away those rights. All it does is highlight/recognize some of them.

    However if we are not willing to fight for those rights we will not be able to know/realize them either.

  2. I guess the chaps in Hawaii never went to competent schools… thus did not learn much in way of mastery of the English tongue.

    If any were to READ the text of that pesky Second Article of Ammendment, they would realise that the word “RIGHT”, is the SUBJECT of the sentence. The verb is “INFRINGE”, it being negative imperative voice. (thus NOT INFRINGE). Given the constrtuct of the complete sentence, the word “MILITIA” operates upon neither the subject nor verb. In contrast, the word “PEOPLE” does operate upon both, by way of the descriptive possessive “OF”, in other words the RIGHT in question pertains directly and only to “THE PEOPLE”.

    That Article does NOT say “the right of the militia”, does it? Nope. It DOES say the right of the people.

    Alinsky hard at work here……. confuse the language and thereby confuse the meaning. An old game, but WE are wise to their treachery. And that is precisely what it is.

  3. Governments don’t have rights, government have powers. The first 10 Amendments collectively are know as “The Bill of Rights” and none of the other nine get anywhere close to delineating any governmental power. So apart from confirmation bias, why would anyone surmise that 2A is empowering a militia, which is further designated as an arm of government?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *