A State Supreme Court Just Issued Another Devastating Rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court - Slate.com

[BootinUp]

BY DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN
FEB 10, 202411:00 AM


Scalia was wrong. Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group/TNS/ABACA via Reuters Connect

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.

Dahlia Lithwick: Mark, I know you’re eager to talk about a kind of amazing and historic Hawaii Supreme Court decision on gun rights. It’s a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Todd Eddins that flames the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions. And it cuts to the core of everything we’ve ever said on this show about originalism and judging. Walk us through the case?

Mark Joseph Stern: It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Eddins then pored over the immense body of scholarship and historical research that has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SCOTUS was catastrophically wrong in Heller. He even quoted this great study that refutes a centerpiece of Justice Antonin Scalia’s analysis in Heller, which was the idea that the phrase “bear arms” typically meant individual use of a weapon in 18th-century parlance. Scholars have analyzed thousands of documents from that era and proved that Scalia was just objectively wrong: The phrase “bear arms” was unfailingly used in a collective context, describing a militia—which makes sense, since the Second Amendment begins by saying its purpose is to protect the militia, not an individual right to own guns.

continued https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/hawaii-supreme-court-guns-case-rebuke-scalia.html

[Lovie777]

1. K & R............................

[Irish_Dem]

2. It is 100% fact that our founding fathers did not intend for the 2A to be an excuse

for school children to be mass murdered as they sit in school.

And the same for adults going about their business on a daily basis.

Yet the SC insists this is the case.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. 2A is infringing on our pursuit of happiness

SCOTUS(R) got the priorities wrong. Many of their rulings sort out which right or freedom is primary or tertiary. And these change over time.

What is aloha spirit if not the right to be safe and happy?

Scalia was a Euro-fascist import tied to monied interests, imho.

[Irish_Dem]

5. Guns are much more important than our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The courts consistently rule in favor of guns over human lives.
They obviously are working for the oligarchs or US enemies.
They do not work for the American people.

I am glad to see a state court stand up for what is correct according to our founding fathers.
And for the American people.

[calimary]

25. Sure seems like it (that lead line, anyway).

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Keep hope alive

even if citizens are dropping by the boatload

[AllaN01Bear]

6. bookmarked.

[et tu]

7. dig that scalia-

guns over kids? just greedy guts, thank you hawaii - mahalo!

[wolfie001]

8. States Rights

Right, all you RW gun-humpers?

[orleans]

9. wonderful! maybe, just maybe, this will catch on in a few other states. thank you hawaii! nt

[KS Toronado]

10. There goes the 1st domino on this issue, hope more follow.

[RainCaster]

16. I would like to see CA weigh on this

While I love Hawaii, and it's my second home, I would love to see a more influential state weigh in. I sure hope this becomes a trend.

[Bluethroughu]

11. Yes!!!!

Awesome, States rights!

[pandr32]

12. This makes me so proud to live in Hawaii.

While there are many idiots here, our state government and institutions are blue as the sky and the ocean that surrounds us.
A big shaka to all!

[Chili Pepper]

13. Let's hope that the "States Rights" argument

blows up in their faces.

"Be careful what you wish for"

[cloudbase]

26. Indeed.

When state law conflicts with federal law, federal law preempts state law.

[iluvtennis]

14. Good stuff. n/t

[BComplex]

15. And now the states need to say the supremes got it wrong about Dobbs.

That it is against everything in the constitution that says the government can make a woman carry a child. When other state supreme courts start throwing shit back at the SCOTUS that they've gotten wrong, maybe the FASCIST, FEDERALIST SOCIETY powers that be will realize they majorly fucked up by stacking the court. By doing that, they destroyed its credibility for all time.

EVERYTHING trump touches DIES. I hope America, itself, isn't part of that. He definitely killed our goodwill towards our fellow Americans as a matter of policy. He ran to divide for the sake of our enemies that have bought and paid for the republican party.

[niyad]

17. KNR and bookmarking.

[CaptainTruth]

18. Plus, 2A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The entire amendment is literally predicated on "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

Is such a militia "necessary" today? Are states not able to provide for their own security with police forces, sheriffs, & National Guard? I would argue that states are able to provide for their own security without millions of people running around with guns, & in fact, those millions of armed folks are doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the 2A intended because they aren't enhancing the security of the state, they're threatening the security of the state & all who live in it.

I would argue that the open carry for everyone (& other) advocades should have to prove:
1) They are necessary to the security of the state & the state can't provide for its own security without them, &
2) They actually increase, not decrease, the security of the state & those who live in it.

All using objective, verifiable, data.

Just my humble opinion.

[SlimJimmy]

35. The "well regulated militia" meant any male person able to bear arms.

Since there was no standing army, the militia was quite necessary. It's what the founders intended and made clear. Bottom line, if you don't like the amendment, petition to have it changed via the provisions in the Constitution.

[HAB911]

19. HOT DAMN

here we go....................

[Martin68]

20. I would love it if this was the first step towards a nation-wide rebuke of the Supreme Court's capture by the NRA.

It was the NRA that first re-interpreted the meaning of the clause, and the right jumped on board, culminating in a packed court that fully supported an absurd interpretation of the clause.

[BobsYourUncle]

21. Let the tail wag the dog! n/t

[dlk]

22. For the strict constructionists on the court

The individual right to bear arms was a fictitious creation based upon a personal interest/desire and given what we know about certain justice’s “ethics,” it wouldn’t be surprising if money changed hands.

Scalia’s opinion changed our country forever and we have the daily bloodshed and carnage to prove it.

Our founding fathers could have never imagined the dystopian horror show this one overly liberal and overly creative SCOTUS decision gave us.

Bravo to the Aloha State!

[Hekate]

23. 🌺 So much Aloha poured out for the rest of us in these benighted times 🌺

May it spread across the land. Mahalo nui loa to my old home state.

[Karadeniz]

24. HAPPY DANCE TIME !!!!! THIS IS WHAT IVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED !!!!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Well, to be fair that is EXACTLY what the 2nd says, always has. I wonder how much money Scaiia

was given by NRA and gun mfgs.

[DoBW]

28. yeah, every body doin' a brand new dance now --Texas ain't special

Aloha Hawaii humanity

[mahina]

29. I really thought we were in for it on this one. Thank goodness.

Reminded of Pilahi Paki often and especially here.

Auntie Pilahi said one day the world will look to Hawai’i for the answer and that answer is ALOHA.

[Orrex]

30. Heller, Dobbs, and Citizens United are three of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history

[SlimJimmy]

34. Completely Agreed

But until they are overturned, they are the law of the land. No State law can undo that. The 10th amendment (State's rights) have nothing to do with it

[SlimJimmy]

31. The supremacy clause says otherwise.

State laws must fall in line with federal law, because federal law is always supreme. Why we keep making this insane argument here at DU is beyond me. I mean, I get it, many here hate firearms with a red hot passion. But there are many Democrats (myself included) that own and appreciate firearms as a means for hunting and protecting our family. Is that so hard to understand? I'll be honest, I grow quite weary of all the constant gun owner bashing here because a lot of it is based on pure ignorance of the law, and the Constitution.

[BootinUp]

32. What argument are you attributing to me?

The claim that this will take precedence over federal courts and law is not made anywhere AFAIK. In fact if you go and read the interesting article they mention this aspect. This is more about sending messages and rejecting SCOTUS bs.

[SlimJimmy]

33. All I'm saying is that State law does not trump Federal law.

Hawaii can write any law it wants to, but it will be invalid on it's face if a federal law or USSC ruling is in place.