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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      4·
      9 months ago

      Supremacy clause strikes again.

      A state law that contradicts federal law is facially invalid. My state could make a law saying that it was legal to make and sell machine guns, but the NFA of 1934 and FOPA of 1986 both say no, and I guarantee that anyone that tried to follow state law in that case would end up in federal prison.

      We saw the same thing in regards to reproductive rights, prior to the Dobbs decision; states would pass laws banning reproductive choice for women, and they would immediately be struck down by courts as invalid because Roe had already said those laws were invalid. Until federal law changes–or SCOTUS rules a different way–the law is that, regardless of what a state says, marijuana users are not allowed to own firearms.

      …And, FWIW, federal courts may end throwing that out in the wake of the NYSPRA v. Bruen decision. I think that there are a few cases currently working their way through the system.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          12·
          9 months ago

          So you can see why states are so defiant when the union tries to impose laws over them

          • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            1·
            9 months ago

            Aren’t US states like counties? Like the states have a narrow set of rules they decide over and the rest comes from the top down.

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              1·
              9 months ago

              Over the years the federal government has expanded it’s power, so ideally yes but States still have a lot of power

              The notion that they are self governing is why they scream about state’s rights and push against any loss of control

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                1·
                9 months ago

                Hah, even I remember from history class that states rights just meant states right to do slavery in the US.

                I guess it is then closer to a state and county relationship for the US states and federal government. The EU probably is not very comparable as it mostly does trade stuff, collective bargaining and consumer protection. Joining and leaving is also free for anyone usually based on a referendum.