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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      169 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        9 months ago

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

        • @atomicorange
          link
          99 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!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I try to be nice to people asking questions.

            edit: I mean, if you don’t understand, and I didn’t answer your question, please feel comfortable to ask more questions.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            Do you need to explicitly include carve-outs or are those implicit?

            If you have a law that says “a person cannot carry a gun in a courthouse”, that would mean everyone, including police, cannot carry a gun in a courthouse. You can say, “felons cannot possess firearms.” I guess that “exempts” people who are not felons implicitly.

            Don’t laws just get interpreted with the constitution in mind, without having to be completely thrown out?

            I’m not sure if I understand your question correctly. A portion of a law can be struck down without the whole law being struck down as unconstitutional.

            • @atomicorange
              link
              29 months ago

              Thanks, I think you answered with your last sentence. They could conceivably just make the part of the law that affects militia members invalid, and keep the rest. Or do they have to literally strike out clauses in the language of the law? If it’s worded too generally it would be impossible to do so without gutting it.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                19 months ago

                I think that depends on how the law is written and in what way the law is unconstitutional.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

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

      • @DaneGerous
        link
        29 months ago

        In this context “well regulated” meant “in proper working order” not heavily overseen.

    • @Maggoty
      link
      09 months ago

      Every single gun control law out there exempts police officers and service members in the course of their duties.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          The rest of the world considers it INSANITY, that Americans think guns and RIGHTS belong in the same sentence

          • @aidanM
            link
            09 months ago

            Other countries have rights to gun ownership you know

              • @aidanM
                link
                09 months ago

                I said rights

                Now whether the law is followed depends on the country. But the country I live in does.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 months ago

                  Well I stand corrected on it being UNIQUELY American, but not by much, and of those that share similar laws, I’m not sure the states should be striving to be compared to many of them. It’s still however insane as a right

        • @Maggoty
          link
          19 months ago

          Go look at the gun laws. It’s there in black and white. If a soldier has written orders then civilian police can’t do anything. (Of course, the military can and that officer better have a very good reason related to the military’s needs)

          And police officers are largely exempted from any sort of gun control.

            • @Maggoty
              link
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That’s not what’s meant in there. Soldiers can carry on their own off base with a privately owned weapon, according to local laws. But when the military is doing something like transporting serious goods, (nuclear waste, etc) they need to be able to protect it. So they get written orders allowing them to mount belt fed machine guns on the convoy vehicles. Or in lesser cases, just carry a service pistol. Obviously that machine gun breaks literally gun control law we’ve ever made, so there needs to be an exception in that laws for it.

              *- I have no clue if the military actually transports nuclear waste, it’s just a hypothetical example.

              *- Due to federal laws there is no right to carry a private weapon on base or keep a private weapon stored outside the armory.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          19 months ago

          Lmao, I see what you’re doing there and I agree with it.