© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Supreme Court of Hawaii is getting scorched online over anti-gun rights ruling based on 'the spirit of Aloha'
Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

Supreme Court of Hawaii is getting scorched online over anti-gun rights ruling based on 'the spirit of Aloha'

The state Supreme Court of Hawaii cited "the spirit of Aloha" in a 57-page ruling that residents did not have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, and it was mocked and ridiculed mercilessly on social media.

"The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities," read the ruling written by Justice Todd Eddins.

"The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others," Eddins added. "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public."

Critics of the unanimous 5-0 ruling excoriated the bizarre justification for denying a constitutional right.

"Reading this Hawaii Supreme Court ruling and I think it broke my brain. Since when is the 'spirit of Aloha' any sort of legal argument??" replied Hannah Hill of the National Association for Gun Rights.

"Ah yes the 'spirit of Aloha' clause of the Constitution that allows the Hawaii supreme court to ignore or overrule SCOTUS," responded Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute.

"The Hawaiian Supreme Court completely lost their minds (and any credibility) by ruling the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them," read a statement from the Gun Owners of America. "Apparently their 'spirit of Aloha' doesn't vibe with the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe the State of Texas can apply the "spirit of the Alamo" to federal mandates..."

"The 'Spirit of Aloha' does not give any court the ability to override our constitutional #2A rights. This is absolutely disgraceful," said Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa.

"Everyone is deservedly mocking 'Spirit of Aloha,' but it’s instructive as well as funny, in that the opinion from which it comes highlights neatly why living constitutionalism is so ridiculous," responded Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
Carlos Garcia

Carlos Garcia

Staff Writer

Carlos Garcia is a staff writer for Blaze News.