A Hawaii man now is due to face prosecution for carrying a handgun on private property, charges that were reinstated in February by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up his appeal.
This issue bears watching by residents concerned about public safety, because it might not be the final word on this case, known as Christopher L. Wilson v. Hawaii. However, the U.S. high court’s decision to let the state’s ruling stand is at least encouraging as a signal that there is a healthy allowance for some local controls on firearms.
Three of the U.S. high court justices issued statements about the decision against hearing the appeal. They make it clear that the state’s interpretation of the constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear arms” diverges sharply from the nation’s landmark ruling in 2022.
In that case, called New York State Rifle &Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the nation’s high court affirmed that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment ensures an individual’s right to carry guns and ammunition outside their home.
This decision was cited in the lawsuit that Wilson filed, stemming from a 2017 incident on Maui. The owner of a fenced-in private property in the West Maui mountains saw in video surveillance that Wilson and three companions were hiking on his land, and he reported it to police.
Wilson’s arrest included charges for carrying a .22-caliber handgun outside his home without a license. He argued that the law restricting him violated his rights to keep and bear arms under the federal and state constitutions. The state trial judge agreed and dismissed the charges, but the state appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
In its Feb. 7 ruling, the state’s justices found that Wilson did not have standing to challenge the law, because he had not applied for a license. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided against taking the appeal on that basis — but in examining both filings side by side, the disagreement on the core constitutional points is plain.
The state Supreme Court argued forcefully against the contention in Bruen that the right to carry firearms outside the home is constitutionally protected for individuals. In writing the decision, Associate Justice Todd Eddins acknowledged that Hawaii’s Constitution mirrors the language of the federal amendment, but persuasively asserted a different reading, at least of local history.
“Hawaii has never recognized a right to carry deadly weapons in public; not as a kingdom, republic, territory or state,” Eddins rightly wrote, emphatically. “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
That was a remarkable rebuke of the national Bruen opinion, which maintained that local restrictions on guns should align with historical practices. In fact, Eddins stated, Hawaii has its own history that also must be accepted as guidance.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, in writing on the high court’s denial to review the case, noted that once Wilson’s case is tried, the constitutional issue could well resurface. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito responded separately in a joint statement.
Thomas complained that Hawaii’s Supreme Court should have reviewed the constitutionality challenge of Hawaii’s laws, even if Wilson had not applied for a license. And he hoped Wilson, or another plaintiff, would bring that specific challenge back to the high court for a full review.
If he does, island residents should hope that the court will further recognize the distinction of Hawaii’s history and legal framework, where a high bar for gun regulation and public safety are concerned.
