• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2nd Amendment lawsuit brought in Hawaii...

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Oh yea by the way, The Hawaiian Royal Palace had running water and toilets before the white house. Spouting crap when obviously only associate with other people who live up to your "white bread" world. I disagree with welfare and so do many locals. But of course governments want people dependent. But it isn't just "Hawaiians" that are willing to take your money, there are many folks in every state that do that.

This is an interesting discussion.

To be fair, the Hawaiian Royal Palace had running water and toilets because they adopted European/white technology - those things were not created by Polynesian culture. In the same way, the royal family adopted western clothing and dress. This does not change the fact that the average Hawaiian still lived in a primitive condition.

Regardless of the fact that European/white culture was vastly technologically superior to that of the Polynesians, it was absolutely unjust and indefensible to annex their country.

As a visitor to modern Hawaii, I find that in much of the non-tourist areas, it is virtually indistinguishable from any Indian reservation in the continental United States - high alcohol/drug abuse, high government dependency, high property crime, groups of unsavory, idle men hanging outside stores and harassing customers, especially if they appear white, etc.

Under our original design of government in this country, each state had the authority (and, I believe, still should) to regulate anything within its borders not prohibited to it by the Constitution (9th and 10th Amendments). Under this scheme, I would have no problem with the citizens of Hawaii electing politicians that sought to disarm them - such is the choice of a (nominally) free people. I would likely use my freedom to never visit there again.

I realize that we are now in the unconstitutional position of having the BoR incorporated against the states, but I still think it is wrong to force the citizens of a state to go against their desires as expressed in the voting booth. I believe that Hawaiians' opposition to keeping and bearing arms is largely cultural. There is nothing wrong with a people desiring to keep their own culture to the exclusion of all others, but by the same token, there is no reason for the rest of us to be bound to a group of people that does not share our freedom-loving, gun-having culture. In my opinion, the very best, most fair, and most just thing we could do for Hawaii (and for some of the other People's Republiks that blight the map of this once-great nation) is to set them adrift and let them choose their own destiny. There is no reason for us to remain in a loveless marriage.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
This is an interesting discussion.

To be fair, the Hawaiian Royal Palace had running water and toilets because they adopted European/white technology - those things were not created by Polynesian culture. In the same way, the royal family adopted western clothing and dress. This does not change the fact that the average Hawaiian still lived in a primitive condition.

Regardless of the fact that European/white culture was vastly technologically superior to that of the Polynesians, it was absolutely unjust and indefensible to annex their country.

As a visitor to modern Hawaii, I find that in much of the non-tourist areas, it is virtually indistinguishable from any Indian reservation in the continental United States - high alcohol/drug abuse, high government dependency, high property crime, groups of unsavory, idle men hanging outside stores and harassing customers, especially if they appear white, etc.

Under our original design of government in this country, each state had the authority (and, I believe, still should) to regulate anything within its borders not prohibited to it by the Constitution (9th and 10th Amendments). Under this scheme, I would have no problem with the citizens of Hawaii electing politicians that sought to disarm them - such is the choice of a (nominally) free people. I would likely use my freedom to never visit there again.

I realize that we are now in the unconstitutional position of having the BoR incorporated against the states, but I still think it is wrong to force the citizens of a state to go against their desires as expressed in the voting booth. I believe that Hawaiians' opposition to keeping and bearing arms is largely cultural. There is nothing wrong with a people desiring to keep their own culture to the exclusion of all others, but by the same token, there is no reason for the rest of us to be bound to a group of people that does not share our freedom-loving, gun-having culture. In my opinion, the very best, most fair, and most just thing we could do for Hawaii (and for some of the other People's Republiks that blight the map of this once-great nation) is to set them adrift and let them choose their own destiny. There is no reason for us to remain in a loveless marriage.

It is an interesting discussion. I will not deny the accomplishments of the Western World, they have been great and have improved our lives dramatically.What is often left out is how quickly many indigenous populations adapt and even improve on the technology. Japan is a perfect example. They went from Backwards in the mid 1850's to superior in many ways. Although they are horrible on recognizing some fundamental rights.

I would like to make a statement about what is considered primitive. Some people simply don't want to give up their way of life. When it's warm every day and you can feed yourself from your land and sea, why need a big house and all the other amnemities?

There are many areas in Hawaii that are like you describe, but it isn't the majority. I am well acquainted with Reservations being 1/4 "native" myself. I also lived in Hawaii for several years and understand what the "welfare" mentality does to a people. Ludwig Von Mises wrote that we should judge a nation by how it treats its minorities (paraphrased) so even though I believe in the 9th and 10th amendment, I believe it is more wrong to deny rights because a majority choose to do so.

Also many of these folks who hang outside these stores are not even Hawaiian, although understandably many folks not familiar with Polynesians may have a hard time differentiated brown from brown.
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Baker v. Kealoha

I didn't realize this was the case the 9th circuit ruled on today The new finding is that they previously were mistaken when they ruled Baker was not "injured" and his rights were not violated. In reversing themselves, the 9th cited Peruta and vacated and remanded the district court ruling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/213562890/Baker-v-Kealoha-Decesion

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ninth-circuit-makes-hawaii-shall-issue-state/

Win for Hawaii!

Not exactly, or at least not yet.

Baker v. Kealoha was one of three cases heard before the same three judge panel which heard Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto. The latter two cases were reheard before an eleven judge en banc panel and lost. The Baker case was not reheard en banc, it was stayed pending a decision in Peruta/Richards. Now that Peruta/Richards is over, the three judge panel has ordered the parties in Baker to file supplemental briefs regarding what impact the en banc decision in Peruta/Richards has in the Baker case.

Baker will probably lose the appeal of the denial of his preliminary injunction on procedural law grounds (see Judge Thomas' dissent in the original three judge panel decision in Baker).

I track the status of Baker v. Kealoha at my webite.

And I just wrote this article on the case.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
so you post something to a four year old thread and a two year olde post to promote your website article...nice touch...

and i am not in the least surprised by the activity.

ipse
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
It looks like Baker v. Kealoha is going to crash and burn.

The Appellees filed their supplemental brief on the impact of the Peruta v. San Diego en banc decision on the Baker v. Kealoha appeal. I disagree with the Appellees argument that there is no right to bear arms in public but from a technical standpoint, their brief was very well written.

Compare it to Baker's supplemental brief where, instead of addressing the impact of the en banc Peruta decision, he opens by saying the en banc panel was wrong about concealed carry and then rambled on for 17 pages when he could have simply left it at "This Court’s en banc opinion in Peruta does not meaningfully impact Mr. Baker’s appeal." which is all he really said in response to the court order to file a supplemental brief regarding Peruta v. San Diego en banc.

By the way, if it is true that Baker never applied for a handgun Open Carry permit or plead that it would be futile for him to apply for a handgun Open Carry permit then his quest for a permit to carry a handgun openly or concealed is doomed.

You can read the briefs at my website -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622

NO CCW FOR YOU.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Three Stooges.jpg
    Three Stooges.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 74

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
so, how many threads are you going to start on the same subject?

you even have one which is a 'sticky'

ipse
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
If this is a new thread, can you start by telling me who the players are, and what the beef is, before telling me how it's going? I read your post and still don't know which one's the good guy.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
I found CA's post informative and useful.

And it was. Especially if added to the basics of the case, either in an existing thread, or with a introduction.

External links are for sources and details, not for the basics.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
thanks grape...your magic again works miracles...

respectfully, your so humble servant...

ipse
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
And it was. Especially if added to the basics of the case, either in an existing thread, or with a introduction.

A legitimate criticism had I posted this in the New York forum but this is a Hawaii case which was filed over five years ago. But even if it had been a brand new case which nobody had posted about before, I included this at the end of the post:

"You can read the briefs at my website -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622"

By reading the briefs you will know more about the case then the three judge panel currently deciding the case because the only thing they know about what happened in the district court regarding this appeal is what was filed in the Excerpts of Record.

By clicking on the link you can also listen to the oral arguments in which all three judges expressed skepticism. Just Callahan suggested to Baker's attorney that he had "shot himself in the foot" to which he agreed.

One of Baker's lawyers just posted at a forum at another website that it is true that Baker never applied for a handgun Open Carry license. Couple this with his failure to plead in his Complaint that it would be futile for him to apply for a handgun Open Carry license and the en banc Peruta panel precluding any standing for a concealed carry license and we have a case on appeal where the plaintiff does not have legal standing to challenge the denial of a handgun Open Carry license he never applied for.

The Defendants-Appellees gave the three judge panel an easy out from deciding the Handgun Open Carry licensing question if they want to take it.

EDIT - Here is my latest article on the appeal -> http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/another-2nd-amendment-appeal-crashing-burning-in-9th-circuit_64153/
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Young v. State of Hawaii Stayed Pending Baker v. Kealoha

The title pretty much sums it up.

From my website:

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 6, 2017 – Typical of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, this case was stayed 1,505 days after the appeal was filed in favor of an even weaker case, the preliminary injunction appeal in Baker v. Kealoha.
 
Top