The decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

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.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    111·
    9 months ago

    just like cannabis and other laws in states taking precedent over federal laws?

    Texas is another example and abortion is a state by state issue too as is medical and vehicle insurances

    driver’s licenses are a state by state thing too as is voting not a federal thing all state by state and education standards are state by state and SNAP benefits

    US should have gotten things more united and settled before it was too late and shattering instead of waiting to cry and moan about it afterwards

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      32·
      9 months ago

      I already responded to that. Local laws do not supersede federal marijuana laws, as you will quickly discover if you try to purchase a firearm. (And, BTW, if you are a ‘legal’ user of marijuana and buy a firearm, that’s a federal felony.)

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          44·
          9 months ago

          WTF are you on about? I didn’t make any argument about “constitutional” carry. Moreover, the Bruen decision said that states could impose carry restrictions, just that the restrictions had to be reasonable and apply universally (neither of which is the case in New York, either the state or the city).

          As far as the states that no longer require a permit to carry? By saying that states may make reasonable restrictions on carrying firearms, SCOTUS has implicitly said that states may have permitless carry. …And TBH, since my state enacted permitless carry several years ago, I don’t believe that there’s been a significant rise in gun violence (aside from the spike seen across the country during the pandemic).

          I think that it’s just a non-issue.

          That said, I would hope that people that choose to carry would get some training, practice, and learn when they can legally use lethal self-defense. Which, sadly, mostly people do not.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          4·
          9 months ago

          Supremacy clause strikes again.

          A state law that contradicts federal law is facially invalid. My state could make a law saying that it was legal to make and sell machine guns, but the NFA of 1934 and FOPA of 1986 both say no, and I guarantee that anyone that tried to follow state law in that case would end up in federal prison.

          We saw the same thing in regards to reproductive rights, prior to the Dobbs decision; states would pass laws banning reproductive choice for women, and they would immediately be struck down by courts as invalid because Roe had already said those laws were invalid. Until federal law changes–or SCOTUS rules a different way–the law is that, regardless of what a state says, marijuana users are not allowed to own firearms.

          …And, FWIW, federal courts may end throwing that out in the wake of the NYSPRA v. Bruen decision. I think that there are a few cases currently working their way through the system.

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              12·
              9 months ago

              So you can see why states are so defiant when the union tries to impose laws over them

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                1·
                9 months ago

                Aren’t US states like counties? Like the states have a narrow set of rules they decide over and the rest comes from the top down.

                • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  Over the years the federal government has expanded it’s power, so ideally yes but States still have a lot of power

                  The notion that they are self governing is why they scream about state’s rights and push against any loss of control

                  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    Hah, even I remember from history class that states rights just meant states right to do slavery in the US.

                    I guess it is then closer to a state and county relationship for the US states and federal government. The EU probably is not very comparable as it mostly does trade stuff, collective bargaining and consumer protection. Joining and leaving is also free for anyone usually based on a referendum.