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.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    10 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·
      10 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·
        10 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·
          10 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·
              10 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·
              10 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.