The proverbial cat is out of the bag in Hawaii, where a handful of state lawmakers recently introduced a pair of measures that call for amending or repealing outright the Second Amendment, according to The New American. So much for claims from anti-gunners that “nobody wants to take your guns.” They only want to nullify your right to have a gun.
This effort began prior to the Friday attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, but thanks to that incident, which has been denounced by every gun rights group on the map, don’t expect proponents of citizen disarmament to drop their efforts.
The New American identified the proponents of repeal as State Senators Rosalyn Baker, Stanley Chang, Drew Kanuha, Karl Rhoads, and Laura Thielen. This isn’t Chang’s first rodeo on the issue. Last year he and former State Rep. Kaniela Ing introduced a similar resolution but it didn’t advance, according to Civic Beat.
According to one report published by Civil Beat, Harvey Gerwig, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association, the state’s affiliate to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, called the effort “crazy as hell.”
“The Second Amendment is the only amendment that protects all the others,” Gerwig observed. “It is eminently as important and/or more important than any of the others, such as free speech.”
For decades, anti-gunners contended that the Second Amendment only protected a “collective right” of the states to maintain a militia. But that argument was shattered with the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. In that detailed analysis of the amendment, the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, determined that the right protected by the amendment is an individual one, and it is fundamental. A majority of state constitutions also include right to bear arms tenets, and they are typically stronger in wording than the Second Amendment.
It’s not that the Hawaii effort has any genuine hope of gathering momentum on the mainland, but it does signal a new—and to many gun rights activists, alarming—boldness to be so outright about the political left’s animosity toward the right to keep and bear arms.
How the mosque massacre will affect the effort remains uncertain. It is definitely providing the gun prohibition lobby a new platform from which to argue in favor of banning so-called “semiautomatic assault rifles.” Already down in New Zealand, CNN has reported that some gun owners have voluntarily surrendered semiautomatic firearms to police in anticipation of new gun control regulations from the government.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told a press gathering Monday that there will be new “reform” efforts within a few days.
Hawaii has already been proven to be very unfriendly to the Second Amendment. How do you think this latest attempt to strip away our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will end? Share your answer in the comment section.
Dave Workman is the Senior Editor at the Liberty Park Press.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
And so it begins..maybe we should have let Japan have Hawaii…see what they would be saying now..I remember “5-OH” Star Jack Lord giving Elvis a handgun…and he broke a federal law then…If Americans don’t get “woke”, there will be no America…but, maybe that is what so many want….but they should think…who will pay for my phone? And how will my monthly check get here?
The Democraps want the Second Amendment gone! That makes the other peskey Amendments MUCH easier to eliminate. After all look at how well Gun Control works in countries that have STRICT Gun Control… Like Honduras for example. Yup… workin’ great down there. They actually have more gun crime, Per Capita than Chicago! That’s saying a lot. All of Central America has Gun Control. Like Ecuador, and Guatemala too. Works so well people are leaving by the 10s of thousands to come here.
Much ado about nothing! The Hawaiian State Government can drool and have wet dreams about it all they want to, but the simple truth of the matter is the Second Amendment is NOT a “State” thing, it’s a “Federal” thing, a “Constitutional” thing! And, even with the entire Anti Gun “Left Coast”, and all the Anti Gun “East Coast” states, they STILL don’t have enough political power to repeal a Constitutional Amendment, and THAT must absolutely CHAP their Liberal Progressive asses…
Maybe it is time to let Hawaii succeed from the US . If they don’t like our constitution , let have their independence and make their own laws .
The one thing we have that New Zealand does not have is…
A 2nd amendment!
If I lived there, and thanks to the grace of GOD I do not…
I would probably turn mine in also!
Thank GOD our founding fathers had the wisdom to devise and implement our constitution!
What an amazing accomplishment!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Oh! I’m sorry! Mine fell out of my boat!
Hiawathia and what other 2/3 rds. of the U.S. OOOOH that’s right they also want to do away with the current Supreme Court and stack it with communists and also do away with the electoral college so the communist left and right coasts including them can control all POWER in the U.S.! I have a screen savior on my computer which sums it up perfectly! The founding fathers meeting and talking about the Constitution, “So we’re all in agreement the first and fourth amendments shall protect the digital technologies of the future including cell phones, email and other private messages conveyed by electronic means…..But the Second Amendment shall only protect Muskets! That is the communist brain dead reading of our sacred Constitution!
Rather than waste Congress’s time and our money on Hawaii’s traitorous push to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I would encourage all law abiding American citizens to contact their U.S. Legislators and demand that they begin proceedings to revoke Hawaii’s statehood. It can be done. All they would need is the consent of the perfidious lawmakers of Hawaii. That should not be an issue. After all, they don’t believe in the Constitution anyway. Then Nancy Pelosi could move to Hawaii, become dictator, confiscate every gun on the islands and start a war with us.
2nd. Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first part of the ammendment in Bold says it all. It provides a reasonable solution to gun control, background checks and safety against crazy shooters..
To have a well regulated militia, i would take as being educated to the possession of arms and skills to use and provide a safe, free and secure country while bearing arms.
To do that i would see it suggesting education for the legal citizens. That could be accomplished by a draft for all 18 year old high school graduates, male and female for 2 years. The first year they study the constitution, Bill of Rights the writings of the founding fathers and mastering the discipline,morals, physical and medical training required by military service. These studies will give college level credits. The second year they will go through the equvilant of military basic training for 9 weeks. The remaining time they will be trained in how to deal with various scenarios involving civilian shooters. Upon a honorable discharge they receive their right to the second amendment and the right to nation wide concealed carry. They also will leave with college credits for the first year and the second year grants them one year at any state college tuition free and VA medical for as long as they remain in or continue college. Also all honorable discharges are entitled to limited citizen veteran benefits, education, medical and home loans. If you are not honorably discharged you lose your right to the second amendment and benefits. To requalify if not honorably discharged you may reenter the two year program one more time. If we have high school dropouts they will immeadiately be drafted in to the program. They will have to aquire a GED along with all the required first years program or will be discharged dishonorable. They will then be assigned to agricultural work until they secure a different full time job, no welfare. All second year training would be optional with a first year passing status acquiring them a 1 year Honorable Discharge Limited with no second year benefits. Limited meaning a honorable citizen but has no desire for gun ownership. The option to complete the second phase would always be open to them.
The drafties that want to be career military or extend there service to our country will have the option to enlist in any of the regular military branches and enter with time served toward retirement or other available benefits, including rank and entering into advanced training.
This idea seems to be in line with the 2nd ammendment as it reads. It solves the problem of unfit people having weapons and also answers the problem of a shooter in public that would be confronted by a armed educated and well regulated militia in its citizens. Deferments upon evaluation would be available for medical and family reasons. For these deferments they would lose their 2nd amendment rights until they could complete year one and qualify with year twos training for some limited medical conditions. The 2nd year training for citizens with medical conditions, could be limited and specialized for some medical restrictions other than psychological to secure their 2nd ammendment rights and a Honorable Discharge would still be available to them.
Then the only background check and registration we would need would be for people who did not qualify or temporarily rejected year two and their right to bear arms. You could still lose your acquired right to bear arms if committing a felony, crime of violence, animal cruelty or diagnosed with a drug or psychological problem.
Hunting with arms for juveniles would still be permitted under the supervision of a honorably discharged or grandfathered in citizen.
Added thought. Since a significant amount of shooters have been on psyc meds. With not wanting to remove rights from successfully medicated citizens. I believe a evaluation would have to be made annually of these medicated citizens mental condition to retain their right to bear arms. This seems to be the most difficult part of this idea. Very open to thoughts on this.
You tout a free state and then propose a coercive draft? free men are not drafted, free men fight willingly. You support the 2nd amendment and then disparage the 4th and 13th with your proposal. I would not trade one form of totalitarianism for another (yours). You can’t solve the ills of modern society with your brand of national socialism. Get a grasp of history. Your “solution” is more intrusive and coercive than many the left propose.
The draft i propose is not for purpose of war. It is for education on the proper handling of a firearm, how to deal with a shooter in public and a clear understanding of our constitution. Military service beyond that is voluntary..I would think it would make for a better educated and free society as teens become responsible adults. The two years i spent drafted into the military did not harm me in my views of personal responsibility, respect, the constitution, the handling of a firearm or my responsibility to the defense of our country and our rights and responsibility as a citizen . That service was during a unneccesary conflict and not for the purpose of education or safety in society. I feel it made me a better and more productive citizen.
One need only to look at any nation on earth that does not have such a thing as our 2nd. Amendment to see what life is like under socialist/communist rule. They do as the despot tells them with no means to effectively resist. Venuseuela is just the latest example, although I give them credit for trying with the means they have available to them. The battle for freedom is never ending because the lust for power by the tyrant is strong. We must; in the end, defeat and totally destroy them, by the ballot box, in the streets or by the least desirable means…armed revolt. All gun owners should join one or more pro gun groups such as the NRA and others. There is strength in numbers. And finally, vote only for pro gun candidates at all levels of government.
I’m saying what happened in New Zealand isn’t right but think about what happened to our Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9-11. Should we have banned airplanes or the Terrorists and the country from where there from or the religion and what they want ? Should we ban automobiles or vehicles driven by drunk drivers or the Alcohol they consumed ? And drugs , and weed now being available think of what the recreational weed will do for people who use it driving and working . That won’t be banned either. Putting the shooters in prison for the rest of there lives don’t stop it. What will ? The Death penalty may be the answer.
Let me just say that this (an effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment) is at least the correct and “lawful” way to go about attempting to make such a change as it adheres to the Rule of Law. For without an amendment to the Constitution that directly addresses the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed” remains as the Supreme Law of the Land and prohibits government from “infringing” upon this Right. To be clear, all anti-gun laws that have been passed are unconstitutional having misapplied the so called “supremacy clause” and the “commerce clause” of the Constitution and also completely ignoring the fact that the Constitution is a compact (an agreement and contract) and as such any amendment to a contract has the affect of an overriding force as the provisions and the directives of the amendment always supersedes the provisions and directives of the original document. The Second Amendment IS the overriding force and supersedes the Constitution, period!!!
Remember that with the 18th Amendment we banned alcohol and so Prohibition became the supreme law of the land and that even after realizing what a mistake that was the mistake could not be undone by just a simple act of Congress or by presidential executive order… No, the change to undo Prohibition required the passing of the 21st Amendment before we could all go back to enjoying a “legal” drink.
In so many ways with regard to anti-gun legislation, the Rule of Law is not being followed. Understand that absent a new amendment that addresses gun Rights, the government simply has no authority to regulate the firearms industry. Yet we never see anyone making that argument in court. We argue over the small things and completely overlook the big one.
I agree completely, although my knowledge of the supremacy and commerce clauses is not as informed as yours. You obviously have an extensive background in the law. Perhaps it is time for the NRA; or other group, to file suit against the Federal government and see it through the Supreme Court for a fresh look into the misapplication of these 2 clauses.
There are a number of examples that I could cite but allow me to just point out one here and with the understanding that you do NOT need to be a legal scholar to understand the words of our Constitution. The so called supremacy clause is found in Article IV, Sec 2 of the Constitution and says, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Now did you get that, the part that says, “which shall be made in pursuance thereof”? This makes this a conditional statement. The laws of the United States can only be included together with the Constitution under that umbrella of being considered the supreme law of the land when those laws are made in “pursuance thereof” with respect to the Constitution. Also the word “shall” is a commandment word that gives a very specific directive to the action that must be taken. This is why there are a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Marbury v. Madison and Norton v. Shelby County wherein the high court has ruled that laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void from their inception and “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed”.
Also, keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives authority to the federal government to regulate business that is only conducted within the borders of a state. In other words if you operate a business and make a product that you only sell within the borders of your home state then the federal government has absolutely no jurisdictional authority to interfere with and/or to infringe upon your business activities.
Our problem with individual gun Rights in America I think can be summed up by the following which is a little piece of advice that I first heard a long time ago and which simply stated is to, “Never argue the amount”.
The meaning of that little phrase being the following:
If you were for example to receive a billing statement demanding that you pay the sum of $10,000 to an entity that you did NOT recognize as owing any liability to; Would you pay it or would you argue? And if you argued, would it be over the amount? Well if you do argue over the amount this constitutes an admission that you do in fact owe some amount and the other side would then simply only have to begin to negotiate with you in order to see how much they could extract from you. The correct thing to do would be to disavow any and all liability and to refuse to pay even one cent… And if the other side believed differently then to make them produce the evidence in order to support their claim and to prove the liability they claim you have to them. Because in the absence of any valid proof of claim, it makes their claim against you completely worthless and entitles them to absolutely nothing!
And so in the case of our Right to keep and bear arms, we always seem to be fighting over the scope of what this Right is and then arguing over interpretations of the Second Amendment… In other words, we are constantly “arguing over the amount” and as a result what we now have is a very watered down version of the Second Amendment when it was NEVER subject to negotiations in the first place.
We collectively as American Patriots need to wake up. In a nation such as America that was conceived on individual freedoms and liberty, the protection of these individual Rights is in fact the principal role of government. As individuals we should understand that the protection of our Right to keep and bear arms (together with our other Rights) is what the government’s role and responsibility is supposed to be. Rather than argue among ourselves over how best to protect and defend our gun Rights, what we as individuals need to be doing is to invoke this Right! There are two axioms of law that would apply here. The first is that, “If you do not know your Rights then you simply don’t have any”. And the second is that, “If you do not raise an objection then you do not have one”. Because a Right that is not asserted and invoked is a Right that in practice unfortunately does not exist.
I think that what we need today is a new pro-gun group that instead of lobbying is willing to take the fight to the high court and to demand that government obey the Rule of Law and to not overstep and exceed its constitutional authority.
Correction to the cite for Supremacy Clause.
It is found in Article VI, Sec 2 of the Constitution.
Please excuse the typo.