ALOHA, BRAH! Hawaii’s Insane Gun Laws Finally in the Crosshair

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Daniel Ramirez/https://www.flickr.com/people/21442511@N08

Hawaii’s gun laws are best described as “lika-liki-diki.”

America’s 50th state doesn’t really seem to be aware that it is, in fact, a state and subject to the American constitution. As you no doubt recall, back in 2019 the Hawaiian State House of Representatives passed a resolution begging the government to repeal the Second Amendment. I have to give them credit for having noticed why Hawaiian gun laws cannot pass any kind of Constitutional muster, and I’ll further give them credit for their honesty in this matter. That said, as much as Hawaii wants to repeal the Second Amendment, Hawaii isn’t allowed to repeal the Second Amendment, and that’s why Hawaii has gone full Karen with its insane gun laws. The Second Amendment Foundation has those unconstitutional gun laws in its crosshair at last.

Let’s take a moment to look at what Hawaiians have to do in order to keep and bear arms. To buy a gun, a person must first go to the police station to apply for a purchase permit. Then the applicant must wait 14 days for a background check. Next, the person must go back to the seller, show the permit—which is only good for ten days for a handgun and one year for a long gun—complete the transactio,n and within five days bring the firearm back to the police station for inspection.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Yakutake v. Hawaii, challenging two state laws. That brief makes no bones about what’s going on in Hawaii, in some of the most hilariously direct lawyer-speak I’ve ever read. (It’s rather rare for briefs of this nature to be quite so spicy. Not that I’m complaining.)

“This is a case,” the 13-page brief begins, “where a state-actor purports to comply with the Constitution’s text and Supreme Court case law, while intentionally undermining the fundamental right at issue. In fact, Hawaii is only engaged in a kind of malicious compliance.”

“Hawaii has erected nonsensical hoops for gun-buyers to jump through to exercise a fundamental right,” the brief continues. “The passive-aggressive regulations at issue in this case are mirrored by remarkably similar barriers to voting that were struck down by the Supreme Court more than 50 years ago.”

“If law-abiding citizens were subjected to similar laws while attempting to exercise any other constitutionally-enumerated right, it would be an outrage,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The requirements to merely buy a handgun are solely designed to discourage Hawaii citizens of doing so. The two Hawaii requirements are disgustingly obvious in their intent, which is why the District Court found for plaintiffs Todd Yakutake and David Kikukawa.”

He noted the District Court “found that Hawaii had failed to produce any evidence to justify its scheme under any standard of review.”

“It is alarming,” Gottlieb observed, “that such statutory requirements to impede and discourage gun ownership exist anywhere in the country. Hawaii’s gun control scheme is deliberately complicated, and ultimately frustrating. It cannot be allowed to stand.”