Someone's been smoking their leis.

Courts have ruled for more than a century that the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on possession of firearms, but the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has ruled that such measures are unconstitutional. Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett has properly joined three other state attorneys general in asking that the Supreme Court overturn the ruling to maintain public safety.

The restrictions in DC were nowhere near reasonable. Requiring that all firearms be disabled, locked, and ammunition stored separately is not reasonable.

The peculiarly punctuated Second Amendment 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." The Hawaii Constitution includes a similar provision, kindly dropping the first and last commas. Hawaii law also forbids ownership of assault pistols, automatic firearms and short-barrel shotguns.

Punctuation aside, what it says is fairly straight forward. Most third graders could explain it to you if you need help.

And what exactly is an "assault pistol"? I mean, why use realistic terms when you can attach scary sounding words that mean nothing?

The dangerous ruling does not directly affect Hawaii and other states but, if it stands, will "cast a cloud over all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms," Bennett and attorneys general from Maryland, Illinois and New York contend in a brief submitted to the high court.

Again with the hyperbole and lies. The ruling isn't dangerous to anyone except maybe criminals who prefer unarmed victims, and the ruling does nothing to make firearm sales a free-for-all. What it would do is decide on the individual versus collective rights argument (the argument will never be settled because too many people with lower intelligence get confused by commas).