Senator Karl Rhoads joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on whether bump stocks are illegal, if individuals under domestic violence restraining orders can possess firearms and attempts to ban assault weapons in Hawaii.
The U.S. Supreme Court just issued two opinions that impact how guns are regulated in America. One case challenged a ban on machine gun conversion devices called bump stocks and the other challenged a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals under a domestic violence restraining order. Another case held that the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) First Amendment rights were violated when a government official tried to pressure banks and insurance companies into cutting ties with gun rights organizations after the Parkland High School massacre. The Supreme Court also just agreed to hear a case regarding efforts to regulate “ghost guns.”
Q. First let’s talk about bump stocks which enabled a mass shooter to fire over 1,000 rounds into a crowd in 11 minutes, killing 60 people and injuring over 500 more at a music festival in Las Vegas. The issue was whether the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns which are generally prohibited under federal law. Tell us how the Supreme Court ruled.
Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, which is the part that rests against the shoulder. When the shooter fires, the gun recoils and bumps against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds per minute. Following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, the Trump administration issued the rule that anyone who owned a bump stock was required to destroy it or drop it at a nearby ATF office to avoid criminal penalties. Federal law defines a machine gun as any weapon that can fire “more than one shot,” “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger.” Justice Clarence Thomas, in a highly technical opinion, concluded that the ATF exceeded its authority in banning bump stocks because the shooter must “release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot” and even if a rifle equipped with a bump stock fires more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it does not do so “automatically.” The dissent argued that bump stocks allow a shooter to fire multiple rapid-fire shots with one pull of the trigger as long as forward pressure is applied to the front grip of the rifle, making it perform essentially in the same way as an automatic machine gun. Since the question was whether the ATF had the authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns in the first place, this case may inhibit the ATF’s ability to regulate other weapons and accessories, including other machine gun conversion devices, pistol braces, and ghost guns. Bump stocks are still illegal in Hawaii and the manufacture, importation or possession of them are Class C felonies.
Q. A recent study by the Hawaii State Coalition on Domestic Violence found that 1 in 5 Hawaii residents have experienced domestic violence by an intimate partner in the last 5 years. As a judge, when we granted Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO), one of the requirements was for the respondent to surrender their firearms for the duration of the TRO or any extension thereof. That’s important because it’s too easy for someone under a TRO to grab their gun and retaliate against their partner. The U.S. Supreme Court just decided whether a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals under a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment. What did the Court hold?
In Texas, a man suspected in several shootings was under a civil protective order for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend and threatening to shoot her if she told the police. Even though the protective order expressly prohibited him from having firearms, guns were found in his home, and he was convicted of violating the federal ban on firearms by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. He appealed claiming violation of his Second Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s conviction, declaring the ban unconstitutional, and calling it an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.” This rationale came from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) which ruled that any restriction on firearms must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition” (i.e. it must have a point of reference rooted in the time of the Constitution’s signing). The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the federal law that prevents someone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms, clarifying that the fundamental right to bear arms is “not unlimited.” As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in the opinion, “Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” The federal law being challenged here, he wrote, “fits within this tradition.”
Q. In Hawaii, an average of 22 people die by gun homicide and who can forget the most recent murder suicides especially that whole family in Manoa. You have repeatedly introduced legislation to ban assault weapons in Hawaii and other measures to protect the public. Why has it been so difficult to get these types of laws passed?
Gun rights advocates are more organized and show up to testify in large numbers compared with people who would like to see stricter gun laws. Only about 20% of people in Hawaii own guns, but those who do, own a lot of them. If you did a poll, you would find that people in Hawaii generally support restrictions to protect the public from gun violence. However, legislators have to rely on the sense of their own community and may feel pressure to vote based on the testimony received.
Q. Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and it seems that the Hawaii Supreme Court wants to keep it that way. After the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 2nd Amendment right to carry a concealed gun outside the home in the Bruen case, the Hawaii State Legislature quickly passed some laws to protect the public including requiring people who carry concealed firearms to have a license and to show their license if asked by a police officer, making it illegal to leave a gun unattended in a car and to carry a gun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and prohibiting individuals from carrying of firearms in “sensitive places,” like schools, hospitals, and government buildings. Can you tell us about the Hawaii Supreme Court case of Hawaii v. Christopher Wilson and any updates on Bruen?
Christopher Wilson was arrested in December 2017 for carrying a .22-caliber pistol in public in his "front waist band." He claimed that he was carrying the gun for self-protection while hiking. Maui prosecutors charged him with firearm offenses and the Second Circuit Court granted his motion to dismiss based on Bruen. The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit Court’s order granting the dismissal and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit Court. In its opinion, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that state law did not violate Wilson’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. “[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [T]he right [is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. States retain the authority to require that individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public. Id. at 79-80 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[T]he Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self defense.”), In writing for the majority, Associate Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins cited Hawaii’s “spirit of aloha” in ruling that a person can be prosecuted for carrying a gun in public without a permit” because it “clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
To learn more about this subject, tune into this video podcast.
Disclaimer: this material is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law varies by jurisdiction and is constantly changing. For legal advice, you should consult a lawyer that can apply the appropriate law to the facts in your case.