605
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 91 points 8 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 43 points 8 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.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

To me it seems like that statement is broken down into two parts, divided by the second comma.

What it's premise is is that a militia could be formed at any time when the need arises (the Minutemen, etc.), so all the citizenry can have guns so that they are armed when the militia is formed.

~~Now if back then militias always existed, and they were not formed/disbanded as needed, then ignore what I just said, as it's incorrect.~~ Edit: just realized if they're always formed or not wasn't the issue, its if they were given guns to fight or if they had to bring their own guns to the fight.

[-] jayemar@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

Interesting, I'd never read it that way before. A lot of interpretation sure does seem to hinge on those little commas.

[-] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

This is how I've always read it, especially given the historical context of the minute men being ready to go within a minute should the continental army/US call them to service.

The US wasn't intended to have a standing army when we were founded, it was supposed to be militias.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

The current constitution was created in part to allow a standing army to exist. It turns out not having a standing army and relying in 13+ militias to become an army doesn't actually work.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The difference between an army and a milita being premeditation.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

This provision is completely irrelevant because we now have literal national guard in every state. The 2nd needs to be removed entirely. There is no need for militias anymore to defend the US against Britain or any other country.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

This provision is completely irrelevant because we now have literal national guard in every state. The 2nd needs to be removed entirely. There is no need for militias anymore to defend the US against Britain or any other country.

Well, that's a whole other different conversation to be had. I just replied with an interpretation of the actual amendment.

Our forefathers expected us to modify and enhance the Constitution over the centuries, and not that it would be static forever, mired in the time frame of when it was written.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Modify through amendments, not malicious interpretation

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

But if you follow this logic, how does it apply to the modern world? At the time, there was no standing army, but people could be called up to serve at anytime. There was no all-powerful military industrial complex, so people may need to supply their own gear. Hunting was common and war technology was primitive, so the gear you might keep anyway was directly applicable to war. The goals of this amendment really don’t apply anymore, so how can this topic best serve the people?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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

The monkey paw curls. Gun control laws that do not exempt people who are in a well regulated militia are unconstitutional.

[-] Machinist3359@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

This would...be good actually? The scary thing about guns isn't revolutions, it's random sad men poisoned with conservatism doing a mass shooting.

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It would invalidate every firearm regulation at the federal level. None of them include carve outs for militia.

[-] atomicorange@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Do you need to explicitly include carve-outs or are those implicit? Don’t laws just get interpreted with the constitution in mind, without having to be completely thrown out? Genuinely asking!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Monkey's toe curls: well regulated means heavy government oversight and oh, so many sensitivity and diversity equity trainings

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 months ago

I would support an affirmative action firearm ownership program.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 10 points 8 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 7 points 8 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.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

It's both. Without weapons with which to train, a well-regulated militia made up of ordinary civilians isn't possible.

It's saying, with a weird comma out of place, that civilians can be armed so that a militia is possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Aren't there already limits on what firearms people can have? Also, if understanding their use is a requirement then why isn't training necessary to purchase one?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In regards to rights not being created...

Rights are a created and codified concept. Whether or not something is a right or not is decided by someone somewhere down the line. There is always a foundational document that expresses the right because in it's absence you don't really have a right you have either a privilege that can be taken away by a valid or at least powerful authority or you have a grey area where simply no law or social norm applies until further regulation is created. This is subject to change over time and location.

Rights as we understand them today are not naturally occuring. The idea isn't even particularly old in the grand scheme of things. Before that point laws definitely existed but they were pretty simplistic operating codes there was no higher echelon of law that superceed other law particularly just layers of powerful people who interacted with the law. If you were basically in charge of the law you could rewrite it as you saw fit and your potential consequences were pissing off someone who could band together and rebel against your authority. If you felt secure enough you could re-write anything through decree. Rights are a feature that was conceptualized or created from scratch in 18th century philosophy with the rise and design of modern concepts of democratic government.

The 2nd Amendment itself is a wonderful example of a non-universal right. Out of all the governments in rhe world today only four have a version of a right to firearms. The USA, Guatemala, Mexico and the Czech Republic. Of those only the US and Guatemala have no restrictions on both firearm type and a required licencing program. Outside of that guns are most often regulated but legal. Exceptions being situations like Japan where there is an almost total prohibition but where guns are legally purchasable ownership is covered under variation of regular property rights against government seizure sort of like how your car is.

You technically do not have a right specifically to a car. They are just legal to own without a licence and illegal to use without one. But use and possession are two independent principles. The right to property is subject to laws banning or regulations of specific things but also Constitutional rights against illegal seizure. There are a lot of things one can only legally possess only with an appropriate licence and that isn't a violation of property rights.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
605 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19138 readers
4179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS