Interesting?
I found it quite confusing!
Basically, it is 53 pages of justifying why Hawaii can ignore the Second Amendment, in part because prior to Hawaii becoming a State the King at the time ruled that guns could not be owned by the subjects (or something along those lines). The Court ruled that SCOTUS’s ruling in Bruen was wrong and the State had the right to ban the carry of firearms due to public safety.
From the ruling:
“The government’s interest in reducing firearms violence
through reasonable weapons regulations has preserved peace and tranquility in Hawaiʻi. A free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades other constitutional rights.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
encompasses a right to freely and safely move in peace and
tranquility. See Haw. Const. art. I, § 2; Haw. Const. art. IX,§ 10. Laws regulating firearms in public preserve ordered liberty and advance these rights.
There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under
article I, section 17. So there is no constitutional right to
carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense. “