Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a Hawaii man prosecuted for carrying a handgun without a license, leaving untouched a decision by the state Supreme Court, which used its new statute to determine whether The framework rejected whether gun laws are consistent with the Second Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Hawaii court for its decision in a statement along with Justice Samuel Alito, but said the high court was right to reject the challenge on technical grounds. However, he wrote that the court should hear “appropriate cases” to “make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.”
The Court set the so-called “history and tradition” standard. Historic Second Amendment Decision In June 2022. The test would require the government to show that the gun law is consistent with the country's historical tradition of gun regulation.
The Supreme Court provided some clarity about its new standard last June justified A federal firearms prohibition for alleged domestic abusers, but lower courts are still struggling to apply the framework when assessing the constitutionality of firearms restrictions. That decision included whether certain categories of people – namely those found to pose a credible threat to others – could be temporarily disarmed.
The Hawaii case involved state regulations for licenses to carry handguns in public. Under the state plan, residents would have to obtain a permit to legally possess a firearm. People who wish to carry a gun in public must also obtain a carry license, which can be obtained by demonstrating “urgency or necessity”, good moral character and that they are “engaged in the protection of life and property.” “
Applicants must also be at least 21 years of age and a US citizen. Police departments had discretion to deny licenses.
In December 2017, Christopher Wilson was arrested after he and a group of hikers were found on a trail leading to the West Maui Mountains through private property. Wilson and his fellow hikers told police that they did not see “no trespassing” signs on the property and were heading into the mountains to view the moon and planets. Wilson also told police that he had a weapon, and a loaded pistol was seized from his waistband.
Wilson did not have a permit to acquire the gun or a license to carry it and was charged with violating Hawaii laws for possessing or possessing a handgun.
Wilson sought to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that they violated his Second Amendment rights under two recent Supreme Court decisions, one of which held that the Constitution protects the right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. Gives guarantee.
Wilson's attempt to dismiss the charges was rejected, but shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its June 2022 decision, which expanded gun rights and relied on its history—and—for evaluating the constitutionality of firearms regulations. A framework for tradition testing was prepared.
Following that ruling, Wilson again sought to have the charges against him dismissed, arguing that under the Supreme Court's standard, he was legally allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense, and the state Had to justify its licensing scheme.
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 rebuked the nation's highest court for its Second Amendment rulings.
The state's highest court claimed that the Supreme Court “distorts historical evidence and makes arbitrary selections” in its Second Amendment cases and accused the high court of ignoring a new standard for evaluating gun laws. Accused of.
Referencing the Supreme Court's latest decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court said its new test is a “backward-looking approach” that “ignores today's realities.”
Hawaii's highest court said, “The spirit of aloha conflicts with the federally-mandated lifestyle that allows citizens to carry deadly weapons while carrying out day-to-day activities.” wrote,
Wilson, represented by public defenders, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Hawaii court “showed open hostility toward individual rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
He warned in a filed The Court's refusal to apply the history-and-tradition test “reverses the constitutional order between the states and the national government. When constitutional rights are incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, the states must recognize them.”
Writing on Monday, Thomas said the Hawaii Supreme Court decision “fails to give the Second Amendment its due respect.”
He wrote, “If the Hawaii Supreme Court had followed its duty to consider the merits of Wilson's defense, the unconstitutionality of the licensing scheme should have been obvious.”
But Thomas said that “correction of the Hawaii Supreme Court's error will have to wait for another day,” because Wilson only sought to dismiss some of the charges and asked the court to “review the interlocutory order, which But we may not have jurisdiction.” Thomas said Wilson could ask the court to review the case again after the trial.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed that sentiment in a statement of his own, writing that “Mr. Wilson is free to seek this Court's review after the final decision.”