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.

  • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
    205·
    9 months ago

    Before 2003 the law agreed with me. It was Anthony Scalia who made the baseless assertion that they were two separate concepts.

    That’s 230 years of history and legal basis on my side, countless judges and lawmakers, and one corrupt, greedy bastard 21 years ago on yours.

    • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      9 months ago

      And those pesky federalist papers that explicitly clarified the intent significantly closer to the context of the period.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        4·
        9 months ago

        People forget that the founders were not of the same ideology. Plenty of founders disagreed with each other on the danger of military force, but generally agreed on popular gun ownership to protect against it.