Hawaii asks Congress to repeal Second Amendment right to bear arms

Rate this post

On March 5, 2019, Hawaii became the first state in the “union” to ask the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to “clarify” the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, specically on whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right.

Five state senators, all Democrats (Stanley Chang, Karl Rhoads, Rosalyn Baker, Dru Mamo Kanuha, Laura Thielen), introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution SCR 42, which reads:

Urging the United states congress to propose and ADOPT a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear Arms.

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”; and

WHEREAS, this language has created considerable debate regarding the constitutional provision’s intended scope; and

WHEREAS, some believe that this constitutional provision creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States; and

WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional; and

WHEREAS, however, others contend that the prefatory language of “a well regulated militia” indicates that the framers of the United States Constitution intended only to restrict the United States Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense; and

WHEREAS, under this “collective rights theory”, the Second Amendment asserts that United States citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right; and

WHEREAS, these two interpretations of the Second Amendment have been considered and adopted by the United States Supreme Court; and

WHEREAS, in 1939, the United States Supreme Court adopted a collective rights approach under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) by determining that the United States Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934; and

WHEREAS, the Miller Court determined the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia; and

WHEREAS, the Court further held that the framers of the United States Constitution included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military; and

WHEREAS, the precedent established under United States v. Miller stood for nearly seventy years until the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue in 2008 under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); and

WHEREAS, the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the constitutionality of the District of Columbia handgun ban, which is a statute that stood for thirty-two years; and

WHEREAS, the Heller Court held that the Second Amendment established an individual right for United States citizens to possess firearms and struck down the District of Columbia handgun ban as a violation of that right; and

WHEREAS, the majority in Heller carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that United States citizens may possess firearms by claiming that law abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law abiding purpose; and

WHEREAS, thus, the United States Supreme Court has revitalized the discussion of whether the Second Amendment is a collective or individual constitutional right; and

WHEREAS, in light of the numerous tragic mass shootings at schools, work places, and public events, this body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, and the Governor.

H/t truckjunkie

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
Advertisements
 

30 responses to “Hawaii asks Congress to repeal Second Amendment right to bear arms

  1. Doctor Moebius

    DANGEROUS PRECEDENT!

    VOTE NO!

    This will be the single biggest mistake of the Demonrats trying to overthrow Amerika. Stop these traitors, any way you can.

     
  2. Molon Labe, you nitwits.

     
  3. It doesn’t matter what happens with this, because the Second Amendment has ALREADY been repealed. How so? Via the background checks, that’s how. What is the background check? When you go to a gun shop to purchase a new piece, you fill out an ATF 4473 form. Then, the guy behind the counter calls an anonymous bureaucrat on the phone; this anonymous bureaucrat tells the gun store salesman whether or not he can sell you the gun. In effect, you’re ASKING PERMISSION to buy the gun. Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you have to ask permission to do something, then you do not have the RIGHT to do that something, folks! Ergo, the Second Amendment is long gone; it just hasn’t been made official yet.

     
    • You can be arrested and do jail time for “infractions”-how “official” constitutes Official?

       
    • BTW-How l9ong ago was the first violation of the Second Amendment? Whenever THAT happened,the Second Amendment was,in effect,nullified. (If it’s even POSSIBLE to Nullify a RIGHT…)

       
  4. The timing on this screams “Distraction” …

    They know changing the second ammendment its literalky bringing a knife to a gun fight.
    It has to be in response to themselves getting exposed., because they need something the media can use to focus the sheeple’s attention on.

    I am not falling for it.

     
  5. There are 4 ways to change an ammendment and it would require a lot more RINOs to get it done. They know this! Maybe AOC doesnt. They are firing in all directions in a panic. (Term known as a Death Blossom)
    This is actually good news, It shows thier hand.

     
  6. Tell all those bicks to stay on their own island penal colony with all their other bicks and stay off the mainland where they have no rights to change our laws. Hawaii has always been a penal colony of the USA, the islanders have just not realized it yet.

     
  7. I must confess, while I am not a brilliant person, I at least can see and understand that when the framer’s of the Constitution inserted the Second Amendment, it was with the understanding that the “militia” was in reference to the everyday, hardworking, citizen–who may be called up to to band together as a group to defend the community. These lamos somehow seem to think that this refers to the “military.” Yet, at the time of the conception of the Second Amendment we did not have a standing military. It was not until the population of America decided to throw off the control of Great Britain citizen militias heeded the call to action.

    There is little doubt that these politicians in Hawaii want to confiscate guns and render the everyday citizen powerless to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. This is just about as plain as the nose on your face. The Dems truly wish to push forward to a Socialist/Communist government, which would need to do away with guns in the hands of private citizens. Unfortunately, we have so many citizens who are notable to indulge in critical thinking–they have abrogated their right to think for themselves and have turned this over to paid politicians. The paid politicians in many cases are only doing what they feel is good in their own eyes–not what might be good for the general populace.

     
  8. AOC, as a test run, let’s ground all flights to Hawaii .. sorry, Crazy Mazie; but the swim will be invigorating, though long, arduous and cold.

     
  9. Studies show lei fumes cause the liberals to float too much with their carbon dioxide aspirators which causes them to be subject to many a delusion.

     
  10. Whereas you are a bunch of IDIOTS. Good luck taking our GUNS away…

     
  11. We’ll wait until they establish rail service and they can mail the bill for review.

     
  12. Whereas you people are a bunch of traitors and should be removed from office. America does not need anyone who would take Rights away from us making us docile subjects instead of citizens…. Assholes…

     
  13. Whereas Hawaii was obtained by violating international laws, made a State unconstitutionally and really serves no purpose to CONUSA, we hereby ratify to let them go.

    Good luck, hopefully the rising sea levels will not interfere with your gun consfication.

     
    • Hahahahahahahahaha!!!

       
    • And if the Dimms challenge your ratification of Hawaii’s separation from the Union, just tell ’em we “deemed” ratification, as they did with the 16th and 17th Amendments!

       
  14. If they get away with this, America is in much greater danger, if that is possible.

     
  15. I love how liberal fools waste taxpayers time and money.
    Most of these fools can’t tie their own shoes.

     
  16. Excellent music to go with your article:

     
    • Jim, those were the good ole times! Had we known it would be like it is today, we would have not gotten with the pants down!

       
  17. Whereas I’m going to defend myself from all enemies, forgien and in particular DOMESTIC. Which leftists clearly are.
    There A LOT of folks that have unregistered weapons. They will be the nightmare for those that would disarm us. Plus, at least half the military won’t go along.

     
  18. Forget freedom, give us more handouts, says Hawaii…

     
  19. Some of these comments won’t accept a “thumbs-up”. Some sort of glitch…..

     
    • Just refresh the page and the “thumbs up” function will return.

       
    • Jackie Puppet

      I’ve noticed that if your cursor goes over the “rate this” icon and you see the “Powered by RatingWidget”, it somehow interferes with leaving a thumbs-up/down. You can only refresh like the good doctor says.

       
  20. Jackie Puppet

    BE IT RESOLVED that the 5 of you can go F*#k yourselves.

     
  21. Steven Broiles

    I know this will never happen, but the Constitutional definition of treason should be redefined and expanded to include treason in the first and other degrees, the first degree being the most serious.

    Currently, the Constitution demands that “no one shall be convicted of treason” unless he has “committed an overt act,” that provides “aid and comfort” to the enemy, and that said act must have “at least two witnesses.” But I believe that we could amend the Constitution to define treason in the first degree by stating the following:

    “Anyone who attempts to abrogate, usurp or repeal any of the first ten amendments to this Constitution by an overt act, by legislation or executive order shall be guilty of treason in the first degree” or some such language.

    This is important, for as it stands now, treason is understood to be an overt act committed in war against an external aggressor. My refinement of the crime of treason would remove that limitation in an effort to defend and protect against what Cicero called “treason from within” to protect us from those people and acts that would whittle away our Bill of Rights.

    Just an idea.

     
  22. Colorado Shooter

    WhereAs you can kiss my ass and “try” to take my guns or repeal the 2nd Amendment. A better idea is we just repeal Statehood from your liberal craphole known as Non-Hooleland (means native Liberal IDIOT). Having
    spent many a day in Hawaii while in the US Navy for 22 years, all you care about is the “Hoole” and their money. YOU are all extremely RACIST and care for no one but yourselves much like that jackass obama and his ilk that you provided cover for. So long Hawaii, here’s hoping for another eruption of EPIC proportions very soon.

    My oath of Enlistment states I will protect the country against ALL enemies,
    foreign and DOMESTIC. Guess which list you sorry morons just made?

    Aloha Assholes!

     

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.