Hawaii Takes Aim at the Supreme Court’s Most Chaotic Gun Rights Ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, archly noted that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.” Heller and Bruen “were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” in which only laws existing in 1791 could survive. Instead of searching for a direct historical analogue, Roberts explained, “the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.” That gives lower courts far more leeway to uphold laws without historical analogues.

Though the Supreme Court claimed it was applying and clarifying Bruen, the practical effect was to rewrite it entirely. Thomas, the author of Bruen, acknowledged as much by authoring the lone dissent in Rahimi and applying it strictly to the case at hand. “After [Bruen], this Court’s directive was clear: A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” he wrote. “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”

While the Supreme Court will still not look lightly upon the Hawaii court’s defiance and criticism, there are some hurdles that may prevent it from readily taking up Wilson’s case to overturn it. In its opposition brief, the state of Hawaii argued that Wilson’s case was procedurally unsound. The state noted that Wilson could have easily challenged the concealed-carry law with a civil lawsuit instead of by bringing it in a criminal appeal. “When [he] was arrested, he was carrying his illegally acquired firearm while committing the offense of first degree criminal trespass,” it added. “Unlike the Bruen plaintiffs, nothing about [his] conduct in this case was remotely ‘law-abiding.’”