You have no right to self-defense and no individual right to keep and bear arms. Also, courts have no obligation to follow Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutionality of firearms regulations. So says the Hawaii Supreme Court in its recent ruling in Wilson v Hawaii. They invoke the “spirit of aloha” as the principle that robs Hawaiians’ of their right to keep and bear arms—a right protected by the Second Amendment. Hawaii’s highest state court strongly opposes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Pistol and Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen that reasserts a plain language understanding of the Second Amendment and the natural, individual right to self-defense it protects. Hawaii refuses to recognize that when it joined the United States, that right was protected under the Constitution.
Case Background
In December 2017, Christopher Wilson decided to go hiking with his friends on a trail in the Maui mountains. As a safety measure against potential wildlife on the trail, Wilson brought his firearm with him. The group of friends hiked along, enjoying the beautiful scenery, but they were unaware that the trail was passing through undeveloped private property. The landowner spotted Wilson and his friends on surveillance video and confronted the group on the trail in an ATV, armed with an AR-15. The owner rounded up the hikers and escorted them off his property to a highway where police were waiting. As the police conducted a pat-down search, Wilson informed them he was armed. Wilson’s simple statement resulted in the confiscation of his gun and his arrest. He was later charged with violating Hawaii’s “place to keep” statute. This statute criminalizes possessing or carrying a firearm outdoors without a permit. It is important to note that the State of Hawaii almost always declines permit applications. Wilson faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the charge. A conviction would make him a felon, excluding him from lawfully owning or possessing a firearm for the rest of his life.
While Wilson’s criminal case proceeded through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision New York State Pistol and Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen. Following the decision, Wilson moved to dismiss the charges against him. He asserted that he was carrying the pistol for self-defense purposes, which was protected conduct. The State of Hawaii now had the burden to prove there was an historical analogy for its statute, but no statute in America’s history remotely comes close to the statute Hawaii has in place. The trial court recognized this and dismissed the charges against Wilson. The state appealed the trial court’s dismissal, and the case went before the Hawaii Supreme Court.
The Hawaii Supreme Court refused to conduct an historical analysis, reversed the dismissal of Wilson’s case, and ordered the trial court to continue with criminal proceedings. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that because they disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, they would not apply its test to their analysis—exerting authority they do not possess as an inferior court to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On top of that, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the criminal statute was constitutional under the Hawaii constitution because it advanced a “public safety” goal. Ultimately, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaiians do not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms, only a collective right as a state militia. The Hawaii Supreme Court used the Hawaiian Constitution rather than the U.S. Constitution in this case because of Hawaii’s history as an independent kingdom. The Hawaiian Constitution offers no protection for the individual right to keep and bear arms because such rights do not align with the “spirit of aloha.” The Hawaii Supreme Court refused to accept that it was under the authority of the U.S. Constitution since the moment it joined the United States. “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
In our amicus brief, we argue that courts consistently draw upon historical context in their rulings. From the Federalist papers to past precedents, to the ratification debates, historical references are a daily tool in judicial decision-making. For the highest court in Hawaii to refuse to conduct an historical analysis in blatant violation of instructions from the U.S. Supreme Court is deeply concerning. That is a fast way to guarantee Americans lose trust in the justice system. Additionally, we argue that if historical precedents conflict, the court should rule in favor of the U.S. Constitution. Under Bruen, the government must rebut the presumption that it “shall not infringe” the right to keep and bear arms. If it can’t meet this burden, the court is obliged to strike down the law in place and rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s at Stake
For Wilson, the stakes are simple: will he become a felon for exercising his Second Amendment rights? Will the State of Hawaii be allowed to strip Wilson of his right to self-defense in the name of the “spirit of aloha?”
For the rest of us, the stakes are just as serious. The lower courts must respect and follow Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment and in all other circumstances. The Hawaii Supreme Court must be held to account.
The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The natural right to self-defense supersedes even the protections in the U.S. Constitution. And, just in case you skipped this day in civics class, the U.S. Constitution supersedes the Hawaiian Constitution. Even if the Hawaiian Constitution doesn’t protect its citizens’ right to self-defense, the U.S. Constitution has them covered.
Mountain States is weighing in on this case now, before it can influence the rest of America.
CASE UPDATE: Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the case of Wilson v. Hawaii (also known as the “Aloha Spirit” case). Mountain States previously filed an amicus brief in this case encouraging SCOTUS to hear and reverse a ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court that Hawaiians do not have an individual right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. Even though the Hawaii Supreme Court openly and brazenly ignored recent Second Amendment precedent in reaching their flawed decision – and mocked the holdings in Heller and Bruen in the process – the United States Supreme Court is unwilling to take this case up for review at this time.
It seems, at least for now, that if you are traveling to Hawaii to enjoy some “Aloha spirit”, you will have to forfeit your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in exchange for a lei.
