Search

Hawaii AG cites British era colonial transition rules to uphold anti-gun laws in state

Wow! This is nuts! In the ongoing case Yukutake v. Shikada (challenge to butterfly knife ban and parts of the state level gun control) before the 9th circuit, the state of Hawaii's Attorney General is using this argument to uphold background checks, fingerprinting and also a 10 day permit expiration:


https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1663617167/Yukutake_v_Shikada_Supplemental_Brief_of_Defendant-Appellant.pdf?1663617167


Even following the fundamental change to Second Amendment law effected by Bruen, Hawaii’s firearm statutes are constitutional. Hawaii’s permit to acquire and inspection requirements are supported by historical analogues such as state and federal militia laws, loyalty oaths, and pardons from the Founding Era. Militia laws mandated (and therefore authorized) certain persons—able-bodied, white males from age 16 (or 18) to age 50 (or 60)— to obtain firearms, required militia members and their equipment to be inspected, and required the information to be recorded in official reports. Therefore, they were an early form of firearm permitting, inspection, and registration. At the time of the Revolution, suspected British Loyalists were required to take loyalty oaths or be deprived of their civil rights, including the right to bear arms. By taking a loyalty oath, a person officially requested permission to own a firearm (and have their other rights restored as well). Pardons were an integral part of the criminal justice system that were used to ameliorate the harsh effects of a system that was still developing procedurally.

In short, the Hawaii AG is implying that only white males that swear an oath to allegiance to the government-in-power (think of how this can be abused in the current polticial climate) are able to exercise their 2A rights, and that those white males aged 18-60 that swear an oath to the government in power need to register all of their stuff and allow government inspections of it. In short, once again, we see those defending there laws using examples of discrimination (whether it be based on gender of polticial beliefs), which is why gun control began in the US in the first place. It is clear as day that these anti-rights politicians not only are against freedom, but are attempting to go back hundreds of years to argue that modern day civil rights for ALL Americans don't matter. And to think that they believe that they are the "good guys" in this fight.....