Washington- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a Hawaii man’s appeal of his prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license, leaving intact a state Supreme Court ruling that blasted its new framework for determine whether gun laws were consistent with the Second Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, criticized the Hawaiian court for its ruling but said the high court was correct in rejecting the challenge on technical grounds. However, he wrote that the court should hear an “appropriate case” to “make clear that Americans are still free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional gun licensing schemes.”
The court set out the so-called “history and tradition” standard in a historic Second Amendment ruling in June 2022. The test requires the government to show that a gun law is consistent with the country’s historic tradition of gun regulation.
The Supreme Court provided some clarification on its new standard last June, when it confirmed a federal gun ban for suspected domestic violence perpetrators, but lower courts still struggle to apply that framework when evaluating the constitutionality of gun restrictions. This decision concerned the question of whether certain categories of people – namely those who posed a credible threat to others – could be temporarily disarmed.
The Hawaii case involved the state’s rules regarding licensing to carry handguns in public. Under the state’s program, residents must obtain a permit to legally own a firearm. Those wishing to carry a firearm in public must also obtain a carry permit, which can be acquired by demonstrating an “emergency or need”, good moral character and that they are “committed to the protection of life and property.” goods”.
Applicants must also be at least 21 years old and a U.S. citizen. Police departments had the discretion to refuse licenses.
In December 2017, Christopher Wilson was arrested after he was found with a group of hikers on a trail crossing private property in the West Maui mountains. Wilson and his hiking companions told police they did not see “no trespassing” signs on the property and were heading toward the mountains to view the moon and planets. Wilson also told police he had a weapon and a loaded pistol was taken from his waistband.
Wilson did not have a license to acquire a firearm or a license to carry it and was charged with violating Hawaii laws for carrying or possessing a handgun.
Wilson sought to dismiss the charges on the grounds that they violated his Second Amendment rights under two recent Supreme Court decisions, one of which said the Constitution guarantees the right to keep a handgun in the home for defend yourself.
Wilson’s attempt to drop the charges was rejected, but soon after, the Supreme Court issued its June 2022 decision that expanded gun rights and laid out its historic and traditional test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun rules.
On the heels of that ruling, Wilson again sought to have the charges against him dismissed, arguing that under the Supreme Court’s standards he was legally allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense and that the state should justify its licensing system.
A trial court sided with Wilson and dismissed the charges against him. But the Hawaii Supreme Court overturned that decision and concluded that prosecuting Wilson for carrying a handgun did not violate the Constitution. The Hawaii court also blasted the nation’s highest court for its Second Amendment rulings.
The state Supreme Court said the Supreme Court “distorts and cherry-picks historical evidence” in its Second Amendment cases and accused the high court of improvising a new standard for evaluating gun laws .
Referencing the Supreme Court’s latest decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court said its new test was a “retrospective approach” that “ignores today’s realities.”
“The spirit of Aloha conflicts with a federally mandated way of life that allows citizens to carry around deadly weapons while going about their daily activities,” Hawaii’s highest court wrote.
Wilson, represented by public defenders, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Hawaii court had demonstrated “open hostility toward individual rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
They warned in a filing that refusing to apply the Court’s historic and traditional test “upends the constitutional order between the states and the national government.” When constitutional rights are incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, states must recognize them.”
Writing Monday, Thomas said the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision “disregarded the Second Amendment.”
“If the Hawaii Supreme Court had respected its duty to consider the merits of Wilson’s defense, the unconstitutionality of the licensing system should have been obvious,” he wrote.
But Thomas noted that “correcting the Hawaii Supreme Court’s error must wait for another day,” since Wilson sought to dismiss only some of the charges and asked the court to reconsider an “interlocutory order upon which we We may not have jurisdiction.” Thomas said Wilson may ask the court to review the case after the trial.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed that sentiment in a personal statement, writing that “Mr. Wilson remains free to seek review from this Court following the final ruling.”
