A federal judge has blocked the state of Hawaii from enforcing a recently enacted ban on firearms on its prized beaches and in other areas including banks, bars and parks, citing last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights.

  • Dee
    link
    921 year ago

    What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.

    • @watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      501 year ago

      Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      It was never a thing, and the GOP has never given a shit about it.

      • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.

          • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            And nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have an individual right to constantly be armed for personal safety.

            • @Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.

              • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.

                • @Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.

                  In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.

                  If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.

                  • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Ignoring the inexplicable diversion into the Constitution’s applicability to states.

                    You keep arguing against a straw man (no ownership) rather than the actual point (no absolute right to free carry/use). You can have an individual right to own weapons for the purpose of being a part of a militia without having an inherent right to use those weapons for other purposes.

                    As to the “bear arms” it’s still in the context of a militia. You can’t be arrested for being in a militia. You and your buddies can march around, showing that you’re ready to rebel against an oppressive government, but that doesn’t mean YOU can individually walk down Main Street firing into the air. There’s a prosocial and political benefit from the citizenship being able to rebel, there isn’t one for having random people be constantly armed for resolving personal disputes.

    • Trudge [Comrade]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      Hawaii is a colonial project and isn’t respected by the federal court circuits in the same manner that continental states are. It’s closer to Guam and Puerto Rico than other states in that it carries disproportionate financial and military burdens, including the effects from the Jones act for example.

      • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I gotta say, my understanding of MLism is pretty spotty, but a Lemmygrad user opposing the Jones Act seems really weird.

        Anti-Jones arguments are generally just raw-freetradeism – advocating to remove protectionist regulations so businesses can off-shore (literally off shore) their shipping to cheaper foreign crews, with the (supposed) benefit being that they will save money and then pass the savings on to the consumer. Were you a big NAFTA fan as well?

        • Trudge [Comrade]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Prices in US territories such as Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are sky-high due to the Jones Act to protect American industries at the expense of colonized people. It’s more about the where the ship was built and who operates them than the workers themselves.

          Yes, I am a big fan of NAFTA as well. The only parts I dislike are the parts that allow free movement of capital, disallow free movement of people, and protection of IP.

          • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Wild. And the unions who argue against free-tradeism are the bad guys?

            Labor is almost always the largest contributor to any business’s costs and offshoring it is very popular with capital, so waving away the 75% American crew requirement as “not about the workers” is wrong. From a DOT study, in 2010 an American crew costs 5x what a foreign crew does.

            I live in Hawaii and while I don’t like paying more to subsidize US domestic shipbuilding (if the government wants to subsidize our shipyards, they should do it themselves), but when the major voices advocating for this (in Hawaii) are Republicans, libertarians, and business-oriented Democrats like Ed Case (one can argue those aren’t really three separate categories), I get wary. Because this sure looks like every other time capital wanted to stop having to pay so many expensive Americans with their benefits and labor protections when they could instead offload to foreign workers without any of that. And they pinky swear promise they’ll give us cheaper stuff in return rather than just pocketing the difference.

            • Trudge [Comrade]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Your bad guy, good guy view of the world is myopic.

              American labor vs International labor is a false dialectic that is used to pit working class against each other by the capital. You do realize that right? How is the Jones Act about the workers as you state when it doesn’t stipulate better working conditions, better pay, or ownership in the business itself? I don’t think you’re seriously arguing that the main reason for the price gouging that is happening in Hawaii is due to higher pay for American crew members, so I’ll ignore that.

              In general, Marxists are internationalists and we don’t care about protecting American workers over other workers. I would be a syndicalist if I argued for the supremacy of the union.

              • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                You can talk all you want about an international brotherhood, but these are people’s livelihoods you’re dismissing as unimportant.

                And requiring American labor IS stipulating working conditions, because there is a very real difference between the working conditions of Americans and foreign sailors. This sounds like all you ever engage in is theory, while capital favors foreign workers because they don’t have the same power (and expense) that American workers have.

                Much of the American owned fishing fleet is entirely staffed by much cheaper foreign labor unable to leave their ships because their American company can get away with not applying for work visas. They didn’t just happen to end up with foreign crews effectively held captive during port calls, they do it because they’re cheaper and unable to easily challenge their bosses on conditions.

                https://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/hawaiian-seafood-caught-foreign-crews-confined-boats.html

                This isn’t a case of an open labor market where everyone is on an equal footing and Americans simply choose not to do this work. Americans simply can’t work for 70 cents an hour and bosses prize workers that don’t have worker protections and can’t demand more.

                For many boat owners, the fishermen are a bargain: Bait and ice can cost more than crew salaries. Some of the foreign workers in Hawaii earn less than $5,000 for a full year. By contrast, the average pay for an American deckhand nationwide last year was $28,000, sometimes for jobs that last just a few months, according to government statistics. Experienced American crew members working in Alaska can make up to $80,000 a year.

                An American crew has recourse and the force of law when an employer just refuses to pay their workers.

                U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard routinely inspect the Hawaiian boats. At times, fishermen complain they’re not getting paid and officers say they tell owners to honor the contracts. But neither agency has any authority over actual wages.

                When your labor solidarity philosophy leads you to support and defend the position of capital, a position known to depower workers and empower abuse, it feels like that’s the point where you should be thinking about what the whole point is.

                • Trudge [Comrade]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  So you are deliberately ignoring your previous point about how the main business cost and therefore the reason for the high prices in Hawaii is due to higher wages for American sailors. It’s curious how you weren’t actually arguing in good faith then.

                  You do realize that America as a country can simply change its regulation to stipulate equal pay and treatment for foreign crew members who dock in American ports or are employed by American companies, right? You are arguing that Americans and American companies are allowed to treat foreign workers under horrible conditions, so it is labor solidarity to employ only American workers. Do you see how deranged that sounds when we get down to the meat of it?

                  • @Zaktor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    What? This response is incoherent. American crews cost more, significantly more than foreign crews, and that has a significant impact on costs. Labor is 2/3 of the operating cost for domestic shipping and 1/3 for foreign shipping. Domestic workers costing more and offshoring being cheaper aren’t some new theory, they’re the bedrock motivation for global free trade. Are you a real person?

                    And why do you ignore that your philosophy just happens to align with capital? This just read like a neoliberal screed about supporting the global south through deregulation.