this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
595 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19047 readers
3929 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Every single gun control law out there exempts police officers and service members in the course of their duties.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that is how rights work.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Go look at the gun laws. It's there in black and white. If a soldier has written orders then civilian police can't do anything. (Of course, the military can and that officer better have a very good reason related to the military's needs)

And police officers are largely exempted from any sort of gun control.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Would requiring written orders to vote violate a soldier's right to vote?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's not what's meant in there. Soldiers can carry on their own off base with a privately owned weapon, according to local laws. But when the military is doing something like transporting serious goods, (nuclear waste, etc) they need to be able to protect it. So they get written orders allowing them to mount belt fed machine guns on the convoy vehicles. Or in lesser cases, just carry a service pistol. Obviously that machine gun breaks literally gun control law we've ever made, so there needs to be an exception in that laws for it.

*- I have no clue if the military actually transports nuclear waste, it's just a hypothetical example.

*- Due to federal laws there is no right to carry a private weapon on base or keep a private weapon stored outside the armory.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The rest of the world considers it INSANITY, that Americans think guns and RIGHTS belong in the same sentence

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

The "rest of the world" is entitled to their opinion.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Other countries have rights to gun ownership you know

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Gun PRIVILEGES? Sure, its the RIGHTS part that is insane and uniquely American

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I said rights

Now whether the law is followed depends on the country. But the country I live in does.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Well I stand corrected on it being UNIQUELY American, but not by much, and of those that share similar laws, I'm not sure the states should be striving to be compared to many of them. It's still however insane as a right

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are US police officers well regulated though?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Lmao, I see what you're doing there and I agree with it.