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.

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    143·
    9 months ago

    Rights are not created, bestowed, issued, manufactured, or handed out.

    They aren’t a license or a badge or something physical.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      59·
      9 months ago

      Right. Just like God.

      I think the important thing is to remember how important it always is to fight for them, at any rate.

      • eric@lemmy.world
        233·
        9 months ago

        I would argue all gods are created since there is zero evidence that they exist outside our imaginations.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          9 months ago

          First and foremost. Though that argument in practice drifts annoyingly towards anti-abortion arguments, which are a different situation.

          • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
            21·
            9 months ago

            The rights of an existing citizen should always come before the rights of a theoretical future citizen. Requiring a potential mother to donate time and blood against her will is a very tiny step away from requiring US citizens to donate blood against their will to save a different life. Do you know what kind of shitstorm there would be if they started blood typing people in border states so that they could commander citizens to take their blood to help injured noncitizen immigrants?

            If the government flipped to an ultra socialist majority, the precedent that is ok for the government to override your right to bodily autonomy when it seems it necessary to save a life, could take a pretty dark turn, mandatory blood donations, marrow, that extra kidney you aren’t using… All that could be fair game in the name of life.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              9 months ago

              Interesting argument. I prefer to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo and a human. The idea that a fetus has the same rights as an awake, thinking, feeling person is absurd. If fetuses have rights, then liver cells should too.

              The bodily autonomy arguments are a little less effective imo. The right does not genuinely believe in freedom or rights period, much less bodily autonomy. Thus, body autonomy arguments will not work. They simply don’t really believe in it. They believe people are a resource, to be used up, just like coal or oil. As soldiers or workers or breeders or whatever. They won’t admit it, but that’s kinda how they feel. Kinda that whole old-school “work to live” line of thinking.

              Btw, I hope I’m not confusing you, but I’m not actually a conservative. I’m simply willing to sound like one whenever it helps me to communicate a point to someone. I’m no genuine christian though, Jesus, while real, was a human man, nothing divine about him.