Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

“The thing about the old days, they the old days,” Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Quotes “The Wire” in Anti 2A Ruling


The left’s never-ending struggle to nullify the second amendment of the constitution just took an unfortunate, albeit somewhat comical turn for 2A supporters in Hawaii Wednesday.

The high court of the Aloha state upheld the conviction of Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun without a permit, blatantly ignoring recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights.

Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins claimed the recently decided New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case contradicts existing Hawaiian law.

He laughably chose to emphasize this point by quoting the television show “The Wire” in his written opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quoting a television show as a way of amplifying a legal argument aside, some questioned the overall reasoning in the decision.

It’s also amusing how the quote the Justice was so proud of using in his legal opinion was taken out of context.

The Hawaii court’s ruling was detailed by Business Insider:

On Wednesday, in an opinion written by Justice Todd Eddins, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the 2022 Bruen case “unravels durable law” and “in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

Eddins added that the test created in the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling to determine the constitutionality of gun laws based on whether it’s “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” should be discarded altogether.

To illustrate his point, he cited a quote from a season four episode of HBO’s “The Wire.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution,” the ruling reads, then quoting “The Wire” character Slim Charles: “‘The thing about the old days, they the old days.'”

Though carried out ludicrously, the fact is the Hawaii Supreme Court is knowingly and openly defying precedents set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is particularly interesting in this case is that the state is claiming the individual involved should have had a permit for their firearm, but the state wasn’t issuing permits at the time.

Dystopian indeed.

It seems the government of Hawaii has found itself a little loophole to keep people from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

This ruling is almost certainly going to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, but, for now, Hawaiians apparently aren’t afforded all the constitutional privileges the rest of the country enjoys.

The Reload has more on the ruling:

The Aloha State’s highest court upheld a man’s gun-carry conviction on Wednesday after rejecting landmark decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Hawaii’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that found charges leveled against Christopher Wilson for carrying a gun without a permit violated his rights. Instead, the court ruled its state constitution provides no gun-rights protections whatsoever. That’s despite it including a provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms identical to the one in the federal Constitution.

“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Hawaiian court wrote in Hawaii v. Wilson. “We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

The ruling directly contrasts with the core holdings at the center of SCOTUS’s gun rights precedents. The state supreme court’s ruling explicitly rejects the federal supreme court’s findings in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The lower court’s straightforward rejection of the higher court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence could provoke SCOTUS to take up the case and issue a rebuke, as it did when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled protections don’t extend to modern weapons in 2016’s Caetano.



 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!