The Honolulu Star Bulletin thinks that the supreme court should uphold gun laws. Let’s look at why they think that and why they’re igorant:
Courts have ruled for more than a century that the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on possession of firearms, but the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has ruled that such measures are unconstitutional.
In DC, handgun ownership is outlawed. Possession of rifles and shotguns is heavily regulated to the point that you cannot have a loaded or assembled one in your home unless it is locked up and rendered useless. That is not a reasonable restriction.
Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett has properly joined three other state attorneys general in asking that the Supreme Court overturn the ruling to maintain public safety.
And the gun ban has done nothing for public safety.
In 1939, the Supreme Court agreed with decades of decisions by state courts that a sawed-off shotgun was not among the “arms” the Founding Fathers had in mind. The constitutional right to possession of a gun, that court ruled, should have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
Err, first of all that decades of decisions line is made up. Second, in the Miller case, the supreme court ruled no such thing. The case was not decided and the court asked for clarification about a short barreled shotgun. But making stuff up is easier than thinking. And here comes the PSH:
The dangerous ruling does not directly affect Hawaii and other states but, if it stands, will “cast a cloud over all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms,” Bennett and attorneys general from Maryland, Illinois and New York contend in a brief submitted to the high court.
Bingo. Hawaii’s strict gun laws are in danger.
Robb has more.