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.

  • dezmd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    5 months ago

    This is asserting we have no rights outside of what the federal or state constitutions allow, which is a bad precedent to attempt to set. The Bill of Rights Amendments do not provide us with rights, they instead protect us from government limitations of certain rights that are inherent. People seem do not understand the juxtaposition of granted rights vs protected rights in these contexts when diacussing these kinds of cases.

    Does the Hawaii state constitution specifically deny the right to keep and bear arms outside of military service?

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      5 months ago

      Even if it did, it wouldn’t matter as the US constitution is the ultimate authority and contradicts that opinion. It would take a few years to get to the Supreme Court though.

    • TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world
      15·
      5 months ago

      No, it does not. Many residents have AR-15s and similar to defend against destruction from wild boars and axis deer.