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.

  • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
    71·
    10 months ago

    This is how I’ve always read it, especially given the historical context of the minute men being ready to go within a minute should the continental army/US call them to service.

    The US wasn’t intended to have a standing army when we were founded, it was supposed to be militias.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      9 months ago

      The current constitution was created in part to allow a standing army to exist. It turns out not having a standing army and relying in 13+ militias to become an army doesn’t actually work.