The state of Hawaii does not like guns. They haven’t believed in the right to keep and bear arms for a very long time. That’s been clear by the way the state restricts the right to bear arms.

I mean, they also restrict the right to keep them as well, but on the subject of bearing them, we can see they are one of the six states that have no respect at all for said right.

And now, discussion is ongoing about just how lawsuits already in the pipeline will impact the state’s gun laws.

Hawaii has among the strictest gun laws in the nation. So strict, said attorney Alan Beck, that Hawaii essentially bans carrying guns outside the home. It has been practically impossible to get a permit to carry a loaded gun in public, he said. In the past 22 years, there have been four permits issued in Hawaii, said Beck, who represents various residents challenging Hawaii gun laws.

The state attorney general’s office has argued that it’s not a flat-out ban because people can carry firearms if they have “good cause.” County police chiefs in Hawaii have had the discretion in determining whether to issue a carry permit, something the Supreme Court now says is too restrictive. Without a carry permit, people have been allowed to keep firearms in the home and can transport them — unloaded and locked up — to firing ranges and other limited locations such as for repairs.

One of Beck’s clients is George Young, a Big Island resident who wants to carry a gun for self-defense. Young doesn’t care if it’s concealed or open carry. The favorable ruling in the New York case means Young’s lawsuit would prevail, Beck said.

Now, understand that Young here isn’t just a resident of the state of Hawaii. This is a guy who carried a gun for a living through most of his life. From solider to CIA officer to armed airport security, he’s clearly shown he can be trusted with a firearm–not that it should matter, mind you, because rights don’t work that way, but bear with me here.

And yet, Young was denied a permit to carry because he couldn’t show the state he had what they considered an adequate reason to need one.

Again, that’s not how rights work.

In the aftermath of Bruen, though, it seems Hawaii is going to be like other anti-gun states and put a framework in place to still make it difficult to get a permit.

State Sen. Chris Lee said lawmakers have been getting ready by introducing bills in the last couple of years that would establish training for those who are licensed to carry weapons. He called today’s ruling frustrating.

“I think there’s going to be a rush to figure out how states can intervene and ensure public safety,” he said, adding that lawmakers will be looking at screening, training requirements and ways to keep guns out of public spaces.

Chris Marvin, a Hawaii resident with Everytown for Gun Safety, said lawmakers also could consider legislation that carefully vets applicants for a carry permit and rules to keep guns out of locations such as protests, polling places, state land and schools.

Of course, it should be noted that pretty much everywhere that issues permits carefully vets applicants.

What we’re going to see, and what the Hawaii Rifle Association expects to see, is how onerous they can make these restrictions.

Unfortunately, Bruen does leave the door open for things like training requirements. However, Justice Clarence Thomas’s ruling also made it clear to states that they should be wary of using that slightly open door to make it virtually impossible to obtain a permit either.

In other words, Hawaii is going to have to change their laws, but if they’re not careful, they’re going to see themselves before the Supreme Court yet again in the next couple of years, and they probably won’t like the spanking Thomas would be happy to give them.