Here is just the beginning of what’s to come when you have a lack of trust in our institutions

[ivwshane]

Hawaii’s Supreme Court has ruled to uphold its gun laws stating that its constitution and heritage doesn’t allow for expanded 2nd amendment rights. It also criticized the Supreme courts ruling on the 2nd amendment as well.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/hawaii-top-court-upholds-gun-laws-criticizes-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/

While I completely agree with their ruling, it’s a bad precedent and one that the Robert’s court brought upon itself.

If democrats don’t expand the courts or start holding justices accountable for good behavior…it’s over folks.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

So is this like a judicial crisis or something? Essentially a state supreme Court pulling a "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it" moment?

 

[Jaskalas]

It sounds like a State refusing to recognize the SCOTUS.
What nuance am I missing here?

 

[ivwshane]

It sounds like a State refusing to recognize the SCOTUS.
What nuance am I missing here?

If this were the only example of the Supreme Court being ignored, it probably wouldn’t mean anything but this is the 2nd state that’s ignoring the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Brainonska511]

Now we just need a sovereign citizen-type to defy the Hawaii Supreme Court and publicly carry, only to be shot by police, barred from filing a lawsuit thanks to qualified immunity, and the circle will be complete.

 

[Amol S.]

The NRA is probably going to try a "Cooper v. Aaron" when going to SCOTUS.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is interesting. The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to carry arms for self defense despite the well regulated militia implication whereas Hawaii is saying that without the well regulated part which in that state refers to militias and not individuals, no individual right exists. They say the constitution is not a suicide pact. I take it from that statement they mean that random people off the street, while they may have a right to own a firearm, they have no right to carry it in public because there is nothing well regulated about random people who own guns. It would seem then that the US Supreme Court is saying that regulations met to buy a gun are where the well regulated must be implied if thereafter you have a right to carry. Owing to the laxity surround the capacity for individuals in the US to obtain firearms there is little to suggest that because you have acquired a gun there is anything well regulated about your ownership of it. In my opinion the Hawaii decision looks like it makes far more sense.

I find the issue interesting because we can't really have states defying the federal court but at the same time the Supreme Court has thrown well regulated to the wind in their obvious abdication of past court president having strong legal weight. They seem to be running amok with partisan right wing decisions that benefit monied and political party interests.

They put Bush in office when he lost the election and it has been a Republican disaster for the country ever sense.; I think the misery the Republican Party that no longer exists brought t the American table has created the atmosphere in which there is a public appetite for a dictatorship but one which will instead of bringing relief from failing institutions will vastly multiply the level of misery.

The Constitution may in fact be a suicide pact. There is little in it that insures we have well regulated voters rather than psychos voting to get even.

To further clarify my point. Well regulated means that the order desired of the regulating is something that requires constant discipline to maintain whereas if you meet some regulations to buy a gun the discipline thereby implied can fall into dis-regulation over time.

There is nothing regulated about kids bringing guns to school and using them to wipe out as many other kids as they can.

 

[MrSquished]

The supreme Court is quite close to being a kangaroo court at this point. The corruption from these conservative justices and their Insanity, I don't blame Hawaii. Good for them.

I support the blue States taking a stand against the pure evil that is a republican party today. Let's encourage Texas to secede and take the rest of the shithole states with them. I don't see the problem in that.

 

[Pens1566]

Good

 

[soulcougher73]

Considering “a well regulated militia” are the first four words of the 2A, it would seem common sense that you must be in a well regulated militia for the right to bear arms to apply. So basically join the National Guard if you want to carry a gun, since that is what old timey militias turned into.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The 2A is just a terribly worded amendment, and it really feels like a giant fuck you to America since all the other amendments are reasonably clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I can see both primary arguments here since the damn thing is written like two independent clauses but someone swapped a comma for a period between them. Yeah you do need a well regulated militia, and it is necessary to the security of a free state. Oh yeah, also people can own guns. What the fuck?

So they must be linked somehow otherwise the two clauses wouldn't be together in one amendment, but HOW are they linked? Who knows, so lets just make shit up as we go.

The use of the word "arms" is super vague. Why does the 2A stop at rifles and other "small arms". Why not have a three stage H bomb in my garage? It's an "arm".

It says "keep and bear" so does that preclude people from actually firing their weapons? They can have them, they can show them off, but they can't shoot them?

and on and on and on

 

[Thump553]

Considering “a well regulated militia” are the first four words of the 2A, it would seem common sense that you must be in a well regulated militia for the right to bear arms to apply. So basically join the National Guard if you want to carry a gun, since that is what old timey militias turned into.

That was the general construction of the second amendment for over two hundred years until Justice Scalia (whose guiding legal philosophy was self-stated as a strict constructionist of Constitution) decided in District of Columbia v. Heller to judicially create a right to bear arms for private citizens. Ever since then the so-called conservatives on the Court have continued to aggressively expand on the purported gun rights they created, further continuing their disregard for the plain language of the Constitution. Here's a good explanation:

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/749303276/the-supreme-courts-shift-on-the-2nd-amendment

 

[Moonbeam]

The 2A is just a terribly worded amendment, and it really feels like a giant fuck you to America since all the other amendments are reasonably clear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I can see both primary arguments here since the damn thing is written like two independent clauses but someone swapped a comma for a period between them. Yeah you do need a well regulated militia, and it is necessary to the security of a free state. Oh yeah, also people can own guns. What the fuck?

So they must be linked somehow otherwise the two clauses wouldn't be together in one amendment, but HOW are they linked? Who knows, so lets just make shit up as we go.

The use of the word "arms" is super vague. Why does the 2A stop at rifles and other "small arms". Why not have a three stage H bomb in my garage? It's an "arm".

It says "keep and bear" so does that preclude people from actually firing their weapons? They can have them, they can show them off, but they can't shoot them?

and on and on and on

It could perhaps be argued that the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot by the creation of the army and navy, that there is no need hold and bear arms because they are now paid for by taxes as voted for by congress in the national budget. It is no longer the case that people own guns to meet a national threat. We now have a well volunteer and well regulated militia that furnishes all the arms it needs.

Since a well regulated militia that supplies its own armed has been established as fact, there is no longer any utility or reason for the second amendment to exist. An amendment without function ceases to mean anything. It’s purpose was clearly relegated to a time when weapons were held in private ownership.

Of course, I suppose, one could argue that the people of Hawaii should be able to keep and bear arms in case the threat to liberty comes from the feds trying to force them not to ban guns in public. Self defense should probably include defense against the tyrant of the state which I guess would be any kind of government the people do not support with their vote.

 

[ivwshane]

So close moony. You did exactly what the federalist society members did and created a new right that previously didn’t exist because of reasons.

The point of the 2nd as you pointed out was to ensure states had an ability to protect themselves from foreign and domestic attacks. As you pointed out, the creation of the army makes the 2nd moot (the navy always existed and was expected to protect states in that regard).

The fact that the 2nd is moot doesn’t mean it can be disregarded but it most certainly doesn’t mean it should be reinterpreted to address some issue it wasn’t intended to address, ie the ability for people to protect themselves individually (which in this particular case Hawaii is saying that publicly carrying doesn’t protect its citizens and instead creates a hostile environment). With regards to tyranny, well the constitution and…well…our whole type of government not only provides for the remedy, people in the majority get what they vote for, but any attempt to instigate a rebellion or insurrection (this can only happen via a minority as the will of the majority is inherent in being a majority) is specifically called out in the constitution to be quelled by the government.

This myth that this nation was born via rebellion and that it was our right or duty to rebel again by overthrowing a duly elected government is false. The founding fathers closed that loop.

 

[HomerJS]

If red states can ignore SCOTUS when they disenfranchise black residents in gerrymandering then I guess it’s tat for tit.

 

[ivwshane]

If red states can ignore SCOTUS when they disenfranchise black residents in gerrymandering then I guess it’s tat for tit.

Sheesh! I already forgot about that. That’s how quickly this bad behavior is normalizing. If the courts can’t hold up against these latest attacks we are a ticking time bomb and no doubt Russia or China or anyone else will be ready and willing to set the seeds of chaos.

 

[Moonbeam]

So close moony. You did exactly what the federalist society members did and created a new right that previously didn’t exist because of reasons.

The point of the 2nd as you pointed out was to ensure states had an ability to protect themselves from foreign and domestic attacks. As you pointed out, the creation of the army makes the 2nd moot (the navy always existed and was expected to protect states in that regard).

The fact that the 2nd is moot doesn’t mean it can be disregarded but it most certainly doesn’t mean it should be reinterpreted to address some issue it wasn’t intended to address, ie the ability for people to protect themselves individually (which in this particular case Hawaii is saying that publicly carrying doesn’t protect its citizens and instead creates a hostile environment). With regards to tyranny, well the constitution and…well…our whole type of government not only provides for the remedy, people in the majority get what they vote for, but any attempt to instigate a rebellion or insurrection (this can only happen via a minority as the will of the majority is inherent in being a majority) is specifically called out in the constitution to be quelled by the government.

This myth that this nation was born via rebellion and that it was our right or duty to rebel again by overthrowing a duly elected government is false. The founding fathers closed that loop.

Laws against the he right to rebel against tyranny will are forfeit when a government that practices it denies that it does. When enough people are ready to fight for rights denied it will happen. That's just how it is. The English made the same mistake.

 

[ivwshane]

Laws against the he right to rebel against tyranny will are forfeit when a government that practices it denies that it does. When enough people are ready to fight for rights denied it will happen. That's just how it is. The English made the same mistake.

lol no, the English decided that taxing people and not giving them a say in what the government does was smart. It wasn’t and it turned out badly for them.

What you knowingly or unknowingly are advocating for is tyranny by the minority.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol no, the English decided that taxing people and not giving them a say in what the government does was smart. It wasn’t and it turned out badly for them.

What you knowingly or unknowingly are advocating for is tyranny by the minority.

This is a mistake that people constantly make about many points I make. I am not advocating anything. I am describing what results will follow when certain conditions are met. There are mechanical laws that apply to people who are asleep.

If you are unaware of what you feel you can be blind sighted, meaning triggered. If you are aware of what you feel but still feel it anyway regardlessly that it may actually be irrational, you may put a distance between being triggered before reacting. If you are free of irrational feelings, having felt them to their root and and realized you were not the cause of anything, you will then be free and respond appropriately., I believe.

We were all victimized as children to the extent that we would not have survived continual conscious awareness of the pain, so we created a false self, an ego of denial that helped us survive. What saved us then is now the enemy. It, the false self, concluded it hurts too much to be real. But that is suffering itself because it says no to healing and we can heal. We have to feel what we feel consciously.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol no, the English decided that taxing people and not giving them a say in what the government does was smart. It wasn’t and it turned out badly for them.

What you knowingly or unknowingly are advocating for is tyranny by the minority.

To further clarify what I am saying is that if the Supreme court wants to interpret the constitution as a suicide pact and the people of Hawaii decide they aren't having any of that it will provoke a constitutional crises that the Supreme Court has no army to suppress.

I can't see Biden sending in the Marines to defend the rights of a few in Hawaii who think they have a right to carry arms in public. Sadly we have a Supreme Court that is full of partisan nutcases making up their own rules. I support the right to self defense not the right to some suicidal unfettered gun happy Wild West vigilantism. Ordinary and healthy people have a pretty good inborn sense of justice and equality and the courts should not stray too far from it. There is common sense self defense and common sense gun regulations and laws can reflect a healthy respect for each.