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.

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    73·
    11 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.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      11·
      11 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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          Modify through amendments, not malicious interpretation

          I wasn’t suggesting anything malicious. /shrug

          Having said that, the amendments themselves are interpreted, which gets us to where we are today, since they were written so long ago. Time has a way of distorting both language and meaning.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            2·
            10 months ago

            I wasn’t saying you are, just what I hear argued from most people in support of a living constitution. Basically that the text of the law doesn’t matter, if it’s considered outdated. But IMO thats the place of the elected legislature to change, not judges, who’s job is to best apply what was written.

            Having said that, the amendments themselves are interpreted, which gets us to where we are today, since they were written so long ago. Time has a way of distorting both language and meaning.

            That’s definitely true, but there are more genuine honest interpretations, and more dishonest ones. IMO, looking at what the intent was at the time of writing is best, but I can understand the argument of only wanting to follow what is explicitly written.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              2·
              10 months ago

              That’s definitely true, but there are more genuine honest interpretations, and more dishonest ones.

              Not disagreeing with anything that you wrote, but as far as what I quoted above, I just wanted to say that ‘dishonesty’ tends to be in the eye of the beholder, and people tend to distort their reality based on their own personal worldview/bias’, so it’s hard to get a ‘pure’ interpretation.

              But I do agree that we should all strive for honest interpretations, the best we can.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      32·
      11 months ago

      Repealing the second is the logical conclusion to the insane path the right has taken us down.

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      22·
      10 months ago

      That’s always been my take as well, but then I’m not from the US, and I don’t think that it’s possible anyway with the country’s political mechanisms.