Hawaii's gun laws didn't come from nowhere — and most people, even dedicated Second Amendment advocates, have no idea how deep that regulatory tradition actually runs. The backstory goes back to a sovereign monarchy that predates U.S. involvement by decades.

In 1852, the Kingdom of Hawaii enacted the Act to Prevent the Carrying of Deadly Weapons, a criminal statute that prohibited the unauthorized carrying of pistols or other deadly weapons in public. The law specified that criminal penalties could be imposed unless "good cause be shown" for carrying such weapons.

This is exactly why Bruen's historical analogue framework gets complicated fast. Hawaii can point to 1852 carry restrictions and say "this predates statehood and it still counts." The Hawaii Rifle Association pushed back on that in their amicus brief, arguing it was a monarch's decree to keep subjects in line — not anything resembling American constitutional tradition. That's a legitimate distinction, and one that courts are still chewing on.

Whether the 1852 law was primarily a public safety measure or a political tool of the monarchy is a debate that has resurfaced in 21st-century federal courts, with the Hawaii Rifle Association arguing in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that the law was enacted at the king's whim to oppress subjects, not as part of any American constitutional tradition.

This is the whole ballgame right now in Second Amendment litigation. If courts accept that pre-annexation Hawaiian laws count as "historical tradition" for Bruen purposes, the door opens wide for other states to dig up obscure 19th-century restrictions and dress them up as precedent. Every range conversation I've had about Bruen eventually hits this wall — what actually qualifies as an analogous tradition, and who gets to decide.

Martial law in Hawaii lasted until October 24, 1944 -- nearly three years -- making it the longest period of military rule over a civilian population in American history outside of Reconstruction-era occupation.

Three years of military tribunals, mandatory registration, and confiscation — and then that same population votes those habits into statehood law fifteen years later. That's not a mystery. When your living memory of civilian firearms is "the Army took them," your political instincts around gun ownership are going to look different from someone who grew up in rural Idaho. Understanding that doesn't mean agreeing with it.

This military presence didn't translate into civilian gun culture the way it did in, say, Texas or Virginia — the islands' geographic isolation, high cost of living, and the specific traumas of the martial law period produced a civilian population that was, if anything, more accustomed to firearms being a military matter rather than a civilian one.

That line right there explains a lot. Culture shapes law as much as law shapes culture — and Hawaii's civilian relationship with firearms was getting formed during a period when the military literally controlled who had guns and why. You can't just drop a Heller ruling into that context and expect it to land the same way it does here.

For those of you who've spent time in Hawaii — stationed there, visited, or dealt with getting a firearm legally on the islands — what was your actual experience navigating the permit system, and did talking to locals give you any different read on how they view the whole thing?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Hawaii Firearms History: From the Kingdom of Hawaii to the Modern Legal Battleground

Hawaii Firearms History: From the Kingdom of Hawaii to the Modern Legal Battleground

Quick Reply