Heller VS Hawaii


There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.


District of Columbia v. Heller held that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Any reading of the constitution, Federal papers, Anti-Federal papers, Ratification debates, and any historical context this is obvious!

We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional
right to carry a firearm in public.” (see the below PDF for the full text of the decision)


This is more reason for a national divorce, if Hawaii wants to disarm it’s citizens then so be it; it should not have any bearing on other states. This is a major problem with the 14TH amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The States were not meant to be subservient to the federal government. Sadly that has changed and the US constitution is seen as the “supreme law of the Land” instead of a limited delegation of power from the States and the people. This Delegation was so important to the founders understanding that the 9th and 10th amendments where ratified to make it abundantly clear.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.