Another Devastating Rebuke of the US Supreme Court Was Been Issued by A State Supreme Court!
CNS News–The Hawaii Supreme Court recently delivered a unanimous ruling challenging the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a historic decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the notion that its state constitution provides individuals with an absolute right to bear arms outside of military service. This ruling serves as a direct contradiction to the stance taken by the U.S. Supreme Court, marking another instance where a state judiciary has challenged the federal court’s interpretation.
Justice Todd Eddins authored the opinion, emphasizing a departure from the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in the landmark case of Heller. Eddins argued against aligning the interpretation of Hawaii’s constitution with that of the Second Amendment, disputing the historical analysis provided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He contended that the phrase “bear arms” in 18th-century parlance predominantly referred to collective militia use rather than individual ownership, contrary to Justice Antonin Scalia’s assertions in Heller. The opinion delved into Hawaii’s unique historical context, stating that the state’s populace has never viewed carrying deadly weapons in daily life as a constitutionally protected activity.
A state Supreme Court just issued another devastating rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court. https://t.co/u5TNDe61kX
— Slate (@Slate) February 10, 2024
Read More News: California Introduces Bill to Ban Plastic Shopping Bags Statewide At Grocery Stores!
Fraud Alert: U.S. Agencies Investigate $2 Billion Medicare Fraud Allegations!
Eddins highlighted the absence of a societal norm where armed individuals freely roamed the community. By emphasizing historical context, the Hawaii Supreme Court underscored its commitment to independent constitutional interpretation, diverging from the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach.’
Furthermore, Justice Eddins cautioned against overreliance on historical evidence in constitutional interpretation, arguing that historical analysis can be subject to distortion and cherry-picking. He cited scholarly research debunking key aspects of the Heller decision and emphasized the need to consider societal progress and technological advancements in legal interpretation.
While the impact of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision may be limited in scope due to the possibility of challenges in federal court, it sets a precedent for state judiciaries to assert their independence and develop alternative legal visions. By refusing to adhere to what it perceives as a distortion of history, the Hawaii Supreme Court aims to promote a conception of liberty divergent from the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.