The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term is underway. Already we’re getting huge rulings to roll in.
And now the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down this truly shocking ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court has in recent years produced rulings that were strong in defense of the Second Amendment rights for Americans, ranging from defending the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms without onerous government red bureaucratic tape to striking down unconstitutional laws in states that infringe on these Second Amendment rights.
Which is what makes their latest ruling so utterly confusing. The U.S. Supreme Court has passed on a case that deals with the state of Hawaii’s extremely strict and unique gun laws, specifically concerning a man who is being charged for open carrying in the state. The man, Christopher Wilson, is arguing his defense on the basis that the Second Amendment is being infringed upon by the Hawaii state government.
Supreme Court Declines to Correct Hawaii’s Top Court on Second Amendment Issue
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to address a ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court that dismissed key Second Amendment principles. The Hawaii court’s February decision openly rejected the nation’s landmark Second Amendment rulings, and in doing so, made a broad statement about the state’s unique relationship with firearms.
The Hawaii Supreme Court stated that the “spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.” According to the state court, “In Hawaiʻi, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public,” effectively dismissing the argument for a constitutional right to public carry.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, expressed dissatisfaction with the Hawaii court’s interpretation but clarified that the issue could not be resolved at this time. The two justices noted that the correction of the Hawaii court’s error would need to wait for another opportunity. While Thomas and Alito criticized the decision, they acknowledged that the defendant in the case, Christopher Wilson, had not yet gone to trial for other charges.
Wilson, who was arrested in 2017 for trespassing while carrying an unlicensed pistol, had moved to dismiss some of his charges, leaving the trespassing charge to go to trial. His request for a review centered on a defense rooted in the Second Amendment, but as Thomas wrote, “Wilson seeks review of an interlocutory order over which we may not have jurisdiction.”
LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court denied the cert petition in Wilson v. Hawaii (the "spirit of Aloha" case), with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joining statements saying that they want to wait for a final decision from the state court: https://t.co/gRc6TpxLYV pic.twitter.com/MulXOxu8an
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 9, 2024
Despite the inability to intervene immediately, Thomas made it clear that if the case were to proceed in accordance with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, the Hawaii Supreme Court would likely find the state’s public-carry restrictions unconstitutional. “In an appropriate case,” Thomas stated, “we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also expressed his views on the matter in a separate statement, leaving open the possibility of future review if Hawaii’s highest court does not reverse its position.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Affirming the Second Amendment
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down several important rulings reinforcing the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. These decisions reflect a growing trend toward upholding individual rights to bear arms, particularly in the context of public carry and self-defense. These are a few of the key rulings.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, independent of service in a state militia. The case specifically dealt with a Washington D.C. handgun ban, which the Court struck down, establishing the precedent for an individual right to bear arms.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
McDonald expanded upon Heller by incorporating the Second Amendment to apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Court ruled that Chicago’s handgun ban was unconstitutional, reinforcing that Second Amendment rights extend beyond federal jurisdiction.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)
One of the most significant recent rulings, Bruen struck down New York’s restrictive concealed carry law, which required applicants to demonstrate a “proper cause” for carrying a concealed firearm in public. The Court ruled that the state’s law violated the Second Amendment, affirming that the right to carry a firearm in public is fundamental.
Each of these rulings reflects the Court’s growing commitment to interpreting the Second Amendment as a broad protection of individual rights, pushing back against state and local restrictions that infringe upon those rights. As these cases illustrate, the Court is increasingly focused on the necessity of ensuring that laws related to firearms are consistent with constitutional protections.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
