Hawaii Supreme Court Goes Full Clown on 2A... 🤡
1063 sats \ 5 comments \ @Atreus 10 Feb culture
(Never go full clown!)
Hawaii's Supreme Court lashed out at SCOTUS's method of looking at historical tradition to determine 2nd Amendment rights… and I, for one, almost can't believe a sentence like this was written in a formal legal setting. You can read the full decision here.
https://i.gyazo.com/355d5a923ae4d48223fa68b1cd7d0842.png
It breaks my writer's heart to imagine a serious person with a real job writing and thinking, “Ah yes, that quote is precisely what I need to include in this formal legal ruling...”
write
preview
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Malachi17 14 Feb
Word up!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Feb
Brazen judicial activism
From Wikipedia regarding assault rifles: In the United States, selective-fire rifles are legally defined as "machine guns", and civilian ownership of those has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[19] However, the term "assault rifle" is often conflated with "assault weapon", a U.S. legal category with varying definitions which includes many semi-automatic weapons. This use has been described as incorrect and a misapplication of the term.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lost_dogz 10 Feb
One could argue that in the historical tradition the 2A cannot by definition apply to assault rifles, but that's probably not the direction SCOTUS is thinking
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Feb
2A applies to any firearm including assault rifles.
Your reading of history of 2A is wrong.
There is no living constitution.
The direction of scotus is reading and interpreting the constitution instead of making new laws from the bench (Warren court, Roe, Bakke, Sotomayor, etc)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 10 Feb
It is representative of the "era" of the writer.
reply