Hawaii’s High Court Cites ‘The Wire’ in Landmark Gun Ruling, Challenging Supreme Court Decision
In a groundbreaking ruling, Hawaii’s high court has declared that carrying a gun in public without a permit can lead to prosecution. The surprising decision cites the popular crime-drama TV series “The Wire” and invokes the “spirit of Aloha” to challenge a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights nationwide.
“The thing about the old days, they the old days,” the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court ruling stated, borrowing a quote from season four, episode three of HBO’s hit show to emphasize that the culture from the founding of the country should not dictate contemporary life. The 53-page ruling argues that modern society should not pledge allegiance to outdated cultural norms and laws.
Authored by Justice Todd Eddins, the opinion goes on to assert that “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.” The ruling stems from a 2017 case against Christopher Wilson, who was found with a loaded pistol in his front waistband when police were called to a property on Maui.
Wilson’s handgun was unregistered in Hawaii, and he had not obtained or applied for a permit to own the weapon. Although he claimed to have legally purchased it in Florida in 2013, his first motion to dismiss the charges based on his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was denied. However, in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen shook up gun laws across the country, including those in Hawaii.
Seizing the opportunity, Wilson filed a second motion to dismiss his case following the Bruen decision. A judge granted the dismissal, prompting the state to appeal. Ben Lowenthal of the Hawaii public defender’s office, Wilson’s attorney, said they are considering their options, including seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling has received praise from Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, who called it a “landmark decision that affirms the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation.” However, critics argue that it reflects a resistance to change in Hawaiian culture and a government that has been recalcitrant in accepting the Bruen decision.
Alan Beck, an attorney challenging Hawaii’s gun restrictions, believes that using pop culture references to rebuke the Supreme Court’s historical analysis is evidence of a poorly reasoned opinion. Beck represents three Maui residents who are challenging a recently enacted Hawaii law that prohibits carrying firearms on beaches and in other places like banks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol.
The Bruen decision has set a new standard for interpreting gun laws, requiring modern firearm laws to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Justice Todd Eddins argues that today’s public safety laws should not be bound by outdated regulations and must adapt to the realities of a nation with a larger population and spread across islands in the Pacific Ocean.
The ruling highlights the historical regulation of weapons in Hawaii, dating back to the 1800s when it was still a kingdom. King Kamehameha III enacted laws prohibiting anyone on shore from possessing weapons. The Bruen decision has created uncertainty regarding the legality of measures aimed at curbing gun violence, leading to unpredictable changes in Second Amendment interpretation.
The landscape of firearms laws is undergoing significant transformations, with courts evaluating the constitutionality of laws based on their alignment with historical tradition. This new methodology has introduced unpredictability into Second Amendment cases, leaving many questioning the future of gun regulations.
In conclusion, Hawaii’s high court ruling challenges the Supreme Court’s expansion of gun rights by citing “The Wire” and invoking the “spirit of Aloha.” The decision calls for modern society to move beyond the cultural norms of the past and adapt public safety laws to the present realities. The ruling has sparked debate and uncertainty about the future of gun regulations in Hawaii and across the United States.
