Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, we have talked about what we thought was the worst Second Amendment ruling we'd ever seen in our entire life. Of course, we're talking about the case of Wilson v Hawaii. Now, as you may or may not recall, that case was sent to the United States Supreme Court by Wilson asking for review. The Supreme Court has spoken and they will not be accepting review now before everyone starts hitting panic buttons and starts throwing themselves off bridges. What we're going to do is we're going to break it all down for you, not only in a way where you can understand how this is not that terrible ruling, but also understand just how grotesque the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling really is and why this still needs to be dealt with. So today, slow it all down. Let's geek out for a little bit and let's talk about the worst Second Amendment ruling ever lives on for now.
Okay, before we get going too far down the road, we're going down. Let's remember that this video is being brought to us by the Sonoran Desert Institute. That's right. Get ready to launch your career in the firearm industry today through education. Get ready to start arming yourself with education, and most importantly, get ready to start defending the inalienable rights of millions of Americans nationwide all through our most powerful act, which is education. Listen, the Sono Desert Institute has a program degree or certificate for just about anything that you may be looking for. So check 'em out today by visiting them@sdi.edu or down there in the description box below. Okay, America, I told you the first time I ever saw this opinion. This is absolutely the worst opinion I've ever read. Most of you actually agreed with me. We are talking about Wilson v Hawaii. Now, as you recall, Wilson was arrested for trespassing, but then ultimately a search of his bag led to a discovery of a firearm in ammunition.
But Wilson didn't have a license to be carrying a firearm in the state of Hawaii. Trial Court, however, found that the law was unconstitutional, that there was no historical analogs that supported it. However, it got appealed to the state Supreme Court and understand that at the time it got appealed to the State Supreme Court, we are really in the third inning of the ball game. Okay, now we get to the sixth inning of the ball game, which is the state Supreme Court issuing absolutely positively and without a doubt, the most atrocious Second Amendment ruling ever, where essentially the aloha spirit trumps the Second Amendment. But ultimately, what the Supreme Court said is, Hey, Wilson doesn't even have standing to make this challenge because even though he's claiming that the licensing scheme was unconstitutional, he never applied for a license. That's literally their ruling. Okay? Now while they're trying to explain why the Hawaii State Constitution does not provide any individual with the right to possess arms, well, they also took that opportunity to kick the Supreme Court in the shins.
Therefore, what we're going to talk about today is Justice Thomas joined by Alitos dissent in the choice to not accept review because this case is not being accepted for review here, and we're also going to talk about what Justice Gorsuch had to say. But to give you an idea of what this lower court, which is the Hawaii State Supreme Court's opinion stated, well, justice Thomas put it this way. The Hawaii Supreme Court disagreed. It spent the bulk of its opinion explaining why the Hawaii Constitution does not confer an individual right to bear arms with analysis that doubled as critique of this court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. The court specifically took aim at our focus on original meaning bemoaning the policy consequences. The court asserted that an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment disabled state's responsibility to protect public safety, reduce gun violence and safeguard peaceful public movement by putting firearm restrictions mostly out of bounds.
Get us. That's right. That's exactly what the Constitution does. Now, justice Thomas, again, joined by Justice Alito also stated today, and it denigrated a need for public carry, in particular, rejecting as un Hawaiians a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons on the Hawaii Supreme Court's view. A sounder approach to constitutional interpretation would give due regard to the spirit of aloha and would preclude any individual right to bear arms or at least subject to it, to levels of scrutiny and public safety balancing deaths. That is exactly what the Hawaii Supreme Court stated, and of course, that led Justice Thomas to the inevitable conclusion that the decision below is the latest example of a lower court failing to afford the Second Amendment, the respect due and enumerated constitutional right. Okay, but here's the big nugget to take away from all of this, okay?
Because what Hawaii had argued is, is hey, listen, he never applied for a license that got denied. Therefore, he has no right to challenge the constitutionality of the licensing regime. But what Justice Thomas joined by Justice Alito points out here is no, no, no, no. You see, the minute you start trampling on an individual's constitutional rights, that is sufficient to raise the challenge. As Justice Thomas wrote today, a constitutional violation of Cruzs, the moment the government undertakes an unconstitutional act, for example, a violation of the Tickings clause occurs at the time of the taking Fifth Amendment analogy, where property is taken from a person, but the person has a constitutional violation upon them. The moment the property is seized, the same principles apply to the Second Amendment. That amendment is similarly self-executing and a state transgresses it as soon as the state implements a licensing regime that is inconsistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Now, this is really, really important because I'm going to circle back to another argument because I geeked out on something with a person I'll tell you about in a second. But listen to this language of Justice Thomas. But because the constitutional violation occurs as soon as an individual's right to bear arms is inhibited, states cannot mandate that would be gun owners go through an unconstitutional licensing process before they may invoke their Second Amendment rights. We have made clear that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to all Americans whose exercise cannot be conditioned on a showing of a special need. Now, ultimately, I want you to understand that why the court did not accept review is that this case is completely in interlocutory fashion. Now, there is a case of Smith and Wesson verse Mexico. That case is also interlocutory fashion. However, this case is much earlier in the ballgame, and as Justice Thomas pointed out, all this said correction of the Hawaii Supreme Court's error must wait another day.
Wilson moved to dismiss only some of his charges, most notably leaving for trial, a trespassing charge on which his Second Amendment defense has no bearing. He does seeks review of an interlocutory order over which we may not have jurisdiction. And so for technical reasons, the case is not accepted. Now, I want you to understand, I was geeking out with Hannah Hill over at NAGR earlier today. We were talking about this ruling, and what we found very interesting is, is the court to make this annunciation that the minute a right is ingress or violated upon that provides sufficient standing to make the challenge, which also goes to the argument about percolation in the lower systems, okay? That whether or not we need to allow these cases to percolate in the lower system to make sure that the record is fully developed when we know in fact that there has been a constitutional violation is really an important part to take away from what the court has stated to today in rejecting this particular petition, which yes, arguably was in a premature fashion, but ultimately Justice Thomas and for all these other states, Illinois Floyd Card.
Think about this, justice Thomas, who probably only has a year or two left on the bench and is probably kind of, I don't know, itching for a fight here, specifically stated in an appropriate case. However, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms licensing schemes. Now, justice Gorsuch also wrote a separate dissenting opinion, but again, he pointed out that, Hey, listen, this case is really early in the ballgame, and if we get to the bottom of the ninth and you can bring it to us, we're probably going to get to a different, his ruling specifically stated still, it may not be too late to avoid that result. Mr. Wilson's case has not yet proceeded to trial, let alone through the post-judgment appellate process. The Hawaii Supreme Court issued its ruling in the course of an interlocutory appeal, and often courts revisit and supplement interlocutory rulings later in the course of proceedings.
Perhaps the Hawaii Supreme Court will take advantage of that opportunity in this case. If not, Mr. Wilson remains free to seek this court's review after final judgment. Okay, so for now, if you live in Hawaii, you are stuck under Wilson v Hawaii. Yes, it is in fact America's most terrible Second Amendment ruling, but does that close the book on it? No. It only closes this chapter on it. This was an appeal that was really occurring at the bottom of the sixth, top of the seventh inning. There is still a long way to go. The case once again is Wilson v Hawaii. We'll go ahead and link it up down below. We'll go ahead and link up the Supreme Court's orders today so that you can see everything that came out of conference today. If you got any other questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now.
But if you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. If you got an idea for video, we should be doing around here. Cool, let's hear about it. Click on that link right there and let us know if you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter. The ability to do all of that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner like we talk about all the time here. So know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law