The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in Wolford v. Lopez, clarified prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. Some courts continue to defy the supreme law of the land on this issue.

In the Wolford decision, the country’s highest court admonished the Hawaii Supreme Court that there is no separate standard of minimum rights under the U.S. Constitution for individual states. The basic principle of federalism remains well-settled that federal law provides the minimum rights that each state must provide. Although states can provide additional rights, they cannot provide fewer rights than what the United States Supreme Court or applicable federal appellate courts determine to be the minimum rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Hawaii Supreme Court was reversed in the Wolford case based on Hawaii’s particularly contumacious interpretation of their own laws in nearly open defiance of U.S. Supreme Court controlling authority on the Second Amendment.

Shockingly, after the recent Wolford decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued another decision that double-downed on their contemptible insistence on furthering their own view of the law regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court established as minimum federal rights. They went so far as to suggest that their non-compliance was due to the U.S. Supreme Court being racist in its interpretation of constitutional rights in several recent decisions by the high court.