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

politics

19135 readers
2308 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

just like cannabis and other laws in states taking precedent over federal laws?

Texas is another example and abortion is a state by state issue too as is medical and vehicle insurances

driver's licenses are a state by state thing too as is voting not a federal thing all state by state and education standards are state by state and SNAP benefits

US should have gotten things more united and settled before it was too late and shattering instead of waiting to cry and moan about it afterwards

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I already responded to that. Local laws do not supersede federal marijuana laws, as you will quickly discover if you try to purchase a firearm. (And, BTW, if you are a 'legal' user of marijuana and buy a firearm, that's a federal felony.)

[–] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

SO YOU AGREE that there is no Constitutional right to carry.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

WTF are you on about? I didn't make any argument about "constitutional" carry. Moreover, the Bruen decision said that states could impose carry restrictions, just that the restrictions had to be reasonable and apply universally (neither of which is the case in New York, either the state or the city).

As far as the states that no longer require a permit to carry? By saying that states may make reasonable restrictions on carrying firearms, SCOTUS has implicitly said that states may have permitless carry. ...And TBH, since my state enacted permitless carry several years ago, I don't believe that there's been a significant rise in gun violence (aside from the spike seen across the country during the pandemic).

I think that it's just a non-issue.

That said, I would hope that people that choose to carry would get some training, practice, and learn when they can legally use lethal self-defense. Which, sadly, mostly people do not.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

unless the state says otherwise

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-093

make US laws make sense

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Supremacy clause strikes again.

A state law that contradicts federal law is facially invalid. My state could make a law saying that it was legal to make and sell machine guns, but the NFA of 1934 and FOPA of 1986 both say no, and I guarantee that anyone that tried to follow state law in that case would end up in federal prison.

We saw the same thing in regards to reproductive rights, prior to the Dobbs decision; states would pass laws banning reproductive choice for women, and they would immediately be struck down by courts as invalid because Roe had already said those laws were invalid. Until federal law changes--or SCOTUS rules a different way--the law is that, regardless of what a state says, marijuana users are not allowed to own firearms.

...And, FWIW, federal courts may end throwing that out in the wake of the NYSPRA v. Bruen decision. I think that there are a few cases currently working their way through the system.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The US is akin to the EU, American states are like European states

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There's no federal system for the EU, every country is fully autonomous.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you can see why states are so defiant when the union tries to impose laws over them

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Aren't US states like counties? Like the states have a narrow set of rules they decide over and the rest comes from the top down.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Over the years the federal government has expanded it’s power, so ideally yes but States still have a lot of power

The notion that they are self governing is why they scream about state’s rights and push against any loss of control

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hah, even I remember from history class that states rights just meant states right to do slavery in the US.

I guess it is then closer to a state and county relationship for the US states and federal government. The EU probably is not very comparable as it mostly does trade stuff, collective bargaining and consumer protection. Joining and leaving is also free for anyone usually based on a referendum.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All of those things used to be true

They even screamed state rights about abortion but I guess your history class didn’t cover current events

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Yea, history class was like 30 years ago