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.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    163·
    9 months ago

    Speaking of Texas laws, could the rest of us pass a law that allows private citizens to sue anyone in possession of guns?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      51·
      9 months ago

      Yes, but then you’d have to enforce it.

      A big problem with modern “well if you do X then I’ll do Y” is that - even in brighter blue states like California and Minnesota and Vermont - the local Sheriffs and Police Departments are all still Fash AF.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        I think the fact that there’s no government enforcement is what allowed that to work in Texas. You couldn’t challenge the state, because it’s private citizens that are “enforcing” the law through civil action.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          31·
          9 months ago

          You couldn’t challenge the state, because it’s private citizens that are “enforcing” the law through civil action.

          Its private citizens who are alerting sheriff’s deputies and local pd by filing these complaints. They’ve effectively created a kind of legal framework for anti-abortion SWATing.

          The system only works because the cops/prosecutors/judges are assumed willing to play along. Specifically, Ken Paxton - the state AG - is fishing for pregnant woman and their attendant physicians to hook and hammer. He’s outsourced the process of detective work to his horde of little online gumshoes. But the ability to exercise violence on anyone spotted is still reserved to his friendly officers corpse.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      4·
      9 months ago

      No one in their right mind would expect a law to operate like that, and it’s really just to create fear. No, it could only be passed by someone whose goals are power, fear, intimidation, control. While I wouldn’t rule Dems out of those intentions, I do have higher expectations of their constituents.

    • maccentric@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      9 months ago

      I think a better idea would be for anyone who is carrying must have insurance, but that’s not too likely either

      • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        I agree, but Texas didn’t pass a law requiring women to get baby insurance, so it didn’t fit as well.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      9 months ago

      Sure, right after we pass a law that allows gun owners to shoot anyone who sues them. That makes about as much sense as what you said.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        That makes about as much sense as what you said.

        Someone should have told Governor Abbot that. Granted it’s been struck down now…

        Texas’ abortion law, passed last year as Senate Bill 8, empowers private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy.

        The law is extremely broad — anyone, regardless of where they live or whether they have a connection to the person obtaining an abortion, can bring a lawsuit against anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion in virtually any way.

        https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/24/texas-abortion-law-legal-challenges/

        • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          That’s exactly what I was referring to, though I had no idea it’s been struck down. Good to hear!

          • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            I figured as much, but clearly knowledge of that bit of the law never made it to the fox news crowd.

              • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                9 months ago

                Followup: I overly optimistically interpreted “apparently dismissed” in this context. Looks like at least one court refused to hear at least on case based on that aspect of the law.

                A state judge in Bexar County, Texas, threw out a lawsuit brought against Dr. Alan Braid, an abortion provider in Texas who confessed in a Washington Post op-ed that he had performed an abortion despite Texas’ SB 8 law, which bans all abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy and is enforced through private lawsuits.

                The lawsuit, brought by former Illinois attorney Felipe Gomez in September 2021, is one of several that were brought in court against Braid—so far the only defendant who’s known to have been sued under the law—and the first major ruling issued in a lawsuit brought under SB 8.

                The state court found Gomez didn’t have standing to sue because he wasn’t directly impacted by the abortion, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented Braid.

                The court’s ruling won’t overturn SB 8, but the Center for Reproductive Rights called it a “significant win,” as it sets a precedent that might make it more likely courts deciding future lawsuits brought under SB 8 will shut them down.

                Key Part Of Texas Abortion Law—That Anyone Can Sue—Apparently Dismissed By Court

              • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                9 months ago

                In searching for the other link I saw that the specific part of the law that allows anyone to sue anyone involved with any abortion was struck down. I will look for it again and post if I can find it, but it might be a bit before I do.