The Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

    The bill of rights protects rights, it doesn’t create rights. That is a pretty fundamental concept.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      As written, the right to bear arms only applies to people who are in a well regulated militia.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The modern use of “regulated” isn’t the same as it was then.

        Regulation had to do with training and equipment. The idea was that militias, as opposed to a standing (“Regular”) army, weren’t always trained and armed when they were called to arms. The idea of a “well-regulated militia” was for civilians to already have weapons and understand their use if they were needed.

        So a requirement for a well-regulated militia is for civilians to have the right to own and use weapons.

        Is it antiquated? Maybe. But saying that “well-regulated” militia was meant to limit access to firearms is an argument based on either ignorance or dishonesty.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well not quite. Well regulated did also include training and they did not consider the average person to be well trained enough to qualify for the phrase.

          • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            False, George Mason quote “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” George Mason wrote a draft of what became the second amendment

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        As written, the right belongs to ‘the people’. That’s everyone. It can’t be infringed because that would interfere with their ability to form a well regulated militia, which is necessary to secure freedom.

        English is hard sometimes, but not that hard if you try.

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Rights are not created, bestowed, issued, manufactured, or handed out.

        They aren’t a license or a badge or something physical.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Right. Just like God.

          I think the important thing is to remember how important it always is to fight for them, at any rate.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              When it’s literally a discussion of where rights come from and theists suggesting they come from God (while avoiding the word God and pretending they mean something else), it’s not hijacking. You’re the one trying to hijack to discussion to talk about how much you hate atheists.