A federal judge has blocked the state of Hawaii from enforcing a recently enacted ban on firearms on its prized beaches and in other areas including banks, bars and parks, citing last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights.

  • Dee@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.

    • watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      States’ rights only exists in the eyes of Conservatives if it’s related to owning other humans.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Republicans have no political platform, but they do have a judicial agenda.

      • Zaktor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.

          • Zaktor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have an individual right to constantly be armed for personal safety.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.

              • Zaktor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.

                  In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.

                  If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.

                  • Zaktor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Ignoring the inexplicable diversion into the Constitution’s applicability to states.

                    You keep arguing against a straw man (no ownership) rather than the actual point (no absolute right to free carry/use). You can have an individual right to own weapons for the purpose of being a part of a militia without having an inherent right to use those weapons for other purposes.

                    As to the “bear arms” it’s still in the context of a militia. You can’t be arrested for being in a militia. You and your buddies can march around, showing that you’re ready to rebel against an oppressive government, but that doesn’t mean YOU can individually walk down Main Street firing into the air. There’s a prosocial and political benefit from the citizenship being able to rebel, there isn’t one for having random people be constantly armed for resolving personal disputes.