Used as a traditional greeting or farewell.
”

Hawaii: “But But But the spirit of Aloha and game poachers and black codes!”

Justices: “You want the spirit of Aloha? Okidokee then… Farewell Hawaii unconstitutional vampire rule!”

Bruen’s historical test goes to what the traditions and laws were **in the United States** at the time of the passage of the Second Amendment (or arguably when the 14th amendment was passed), as a way of understanding the Founders’ intent. That Hawaiian law and society historically was hostile to private firearms is immaterial to this analysis, just as would be an analysis of pre-Louisiana purchase French law, Mexican or Spanish law pre-annexation of Texas, California, Arizona, etc., or Iroquois or Cherokee law / traditions (in various areas that later became US states). English / British law prior to adoption of the 2A is potentially relevant *only* because British common law had generally been incorporated into the common law of all the states in the union at that time, making potentially relevant an inquiry as to whether the states had in fact adopted an aspect of older British common law concerning firearms (and often the answer is no).

Further, when areas not in the union in 1789 were annexed or otherwise joined the union, they became subject to the constitution as it existed when they joined — the constitution did not somehow morph to accommodate the laws and traditions of the new areas. For instance, the Kingdom of Hawaii had a longstanding tradition of slavery . . . does Stern believe that somehow means Hawaii is somehow exempt from following the 13th Amendment because its history and tradition somehow trumps the Constitution? Or that its longstanding traditions of monarchy mean Hawaii could dispense with the constitutional requirement of a republican form of state government, and reinstitute monarchy as its form of state government?

Further, as Justice Alito points out, the Bruen test goes to what the *prevailing* history and traditions were — one-offs do not satisfy the test. So even if Hawaiian history and tradition could possibly be material (they’re not), it’s at best a one-off that is outweighed by the prevailing history and traditions of the rest of the country, and thus like the Louisiana slave code provision Justice Jackson so loves it does not satisfy the second element of the Bruen test.