State’s high court upholds the Hawaiian Spirit Law and quotes The Wire in apparent rebuke to US supreme court: ‘They the old days’
      • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        30·
        10 months ago

        They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
          32·
          10 months ago

          God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.

          The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

          Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.

          • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
            37·
            10 months ago

            People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.

            • Landsharkgun@midwest.socialEnglish
              18·
              10 months ago

              Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.

              • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
                7·
                10 months ago

                Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                11·
                10 months ago

                While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  9 months ago

                  Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.

          • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.eeEnglish
            9·
            10 months ago

            It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            8·
            10 months ago

            Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!

            Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            4·
            10 months ago

            Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

            You missed the obvious solution:

            You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          5·
          10 months ago

          Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!

      • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        10 months ago

        Hand guns are made for killin’

        They ain’t no good for nothin’ else

        And if you like to drink your whiskey

        You might even shoot yourself

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    46·
    10 months ago

    Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?

    • scoobford@lemmy.zip
      33·
      10 months ago

      No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it’s wrong.

      You can get out of military service this way though.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          When they wrote the laws against murder in the late 18th century they didn’t really draw that distinction, unfortunately. That’s how laws work, the intent of the lawmakers who voted to pass it are what matters when attempting to enforce it. A similar case would be making Donald Trump ineligible for office over sedition, he put up a legal defence claiming that the lawmakers never intended for it to apply to presidents or other high level office holders, but it turns out the congressional records detail the conversations when they considered making exemptions and decided it should apply to everyone.

            • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              Hawaii’s Supreme court actually has very recently, and the Assault Rifle Ban that expired a few years ago was also a great example of it, but yes I agree more consistency and less corruption in government would be great.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        10 months ago

        It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          1·
          9 months ago

          Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.

          For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person’s autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        How is that any different? It’s still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          1·
          9 months ago

          While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.

          I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn’t have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn’t alive. Now it is. "

      • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        19·
        10 months ago

        That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we’re talking about so I imagine it’s much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          31·
          10 months ago

          Considering the easiest way to get a gun “illegally” is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            32·
            10 months ago

            I hate this argument because it shows just how little people know about gun laws.

            It’s federally illegal to buy a pistol outside of your home state. You can’t just go to a gun shop the next state over and buy a Glock 17.

            For long guns, the seller must follow the laws of the state in which it is sold AND in which the buyer lives.

            When I sold guns and someone from New Jersey wanted to buy a rifle, they had to produce their New Jersey permit and I to do the New Jersey background check and waiting period on top of the NICS background check required federally. I had to reference New Jersey laws and could only sell guns that were legal in that state.

            We had a spreadsheet we kept up to date with every firearm we had in stock, new or used, listing whether it was legal in each state.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                1·
                9 months ago

                The argument I’m replying to is that criminals are buying guns in neighboring states because the laws are looser and they can get away with it.

                But the laws regarding buying a gun outside one’s home state are federal, and don’t change from state to state. A California resident buying a Glock 43 in Texas is no more legal than them buying it in California. In fact - it’s moreso. Buying it in California is just buying a gun illegally by California law. Buying it in Texas is violating California, Texas, and Federal law, and then illegally smuggling the gun afterwards.

        • Cheems@lemmy.world
          56·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think it’s necessarily support. But if actions have no consequences then there’s no reason not to? Not that it’s a good argument but it’s apparently reality

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        9·
        10 months ago

        Clearly. I guess this is the country now. Supreme Court rulings are optional unless the President decides to send in troops to enforce it.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      23·
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          10 months ago

          Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn’t even try to register or get a carry license?

          Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.

          • CaptainProton@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            10 months ago

            There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.

            I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              5·
              10 months ago

              Okay?

              So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.

              For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.

              And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.

              • CaptainProton@lemmy.worldEnglish
                4·
                10 months ago

                What I never get is how people who don’t want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It’s everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don’t even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  4·
                  10 months ago

                  For one, I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn’t the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.

                  Second, bold of you to assume that people who don’t want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn’t get up and think “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store”.

      • Arcka@midwest.socialEnglish
        14·
        10 months ago

        Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit

        Are you intentionally untruthful or just ignorant?

        Is your definition of “almost every” LESS THAN HALF?

        These are facts which are easy to look up and here you are spreading misinformation.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        7·
        10 months ago

        Your information is out of date. 27 states now have “constitutional carry”, where there is no need for a permit.

  • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
    28·
    10 months ago

    It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.

  • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
    28·
    10 months ago

    Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
        9·
        10 months ago

        No, you can’t. Hawaii is not a shall-issue state. It’s pretty much impossible to get a permit there. Also, criminals won’t be getting permits so why should we make law abiding citizens get them.

        Make the bad thing illegal. Don’t make the tools or the intermediate steps illegal

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          3·
          10 months ago

          Fr, I’ve been looking into a tool (that is about to be banned in Canada) that lets you “hack” radio signals. It’s legal to buy and use on your own devices, I plan to use it on my car as after some research into my aftermarket lock I think I can. However if I use it to unlock someone else’s car and steal their stuff, that is illegal.

          Guns follows the same logic, yes, they can be used for crime; just like the f0 or the wifi pineapple, or the bashbunny, or rubberducky/badusb, but they can also be used for defense, like all those pentesting tools can legally be used for pentesting. It’s all in the person behind the item.

          • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
            3·
            10 months ago

            This is the same crowd that will try to claim code is not a crime. Now, I agree with that statement, but at least I’m logically consistent and believe possession of a firearm should be perfectly legal.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        9·
        10 months ago

        True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol

        • Saganaki
          14·
          10 months ago

          Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).

          • Zatore@lemm.ee
            8·
            10 months ago

            The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              6·
              10 months ago

              Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                5·
                10 months ago

                should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.

                You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.

                Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.

                They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.

                The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.

                When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.

                The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.

                You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  10 months ago

                  You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                  I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.

              • Zatore@lemm.ee
                4·
                10 months ago

                I dislike this “only guns from 1700’s” argument. The constitution didn’t make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn’t possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict “new” guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I’ll have to research more.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing:

                  Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one

                  We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.

                  Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people

              • bluewing@lemm.ee
                4·
                10 months ago

                You are already a member of a militia in the US - it’s called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.

                This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.

                I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being “called up” by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I’m old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.

                So perhaps you should get that musket and start training…

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.

                  Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That’s very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?

            • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              We put law on paper because other paper has law on it

              My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                2·
                9 months ago

                you are executing the function of a xerox copier. functioning society

                If we just throw the rules out, then there will STILL be guns.

                You don’t like the Constitution? Hold a Constitutional Convention. We’ve done it before.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            6·
            10 months ago

            A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            5·
            10 months ago

            You don’t need a driver’s license or registration to own a car. You don’t need a driver’s license or registration to operate a car on private property. You don’t need a driver’s license or registration to transport your car in public spaces.

            Hell, if you get a small dirt bike, you can slap shoulder straps on it and carry it down the sidewalk with no license or registration. You would only violate the registration requirements if you set it down in a public space. Granted, that’s not a typical scenario, but it is a valid one.

            If there were a life threatening emergency and you needed immediate transportation to the hospital, you would be justified in using any vehicle at your disposal, including an unregistered one, to make that trip.

            Can I own and operate a gun on my own property without a license or registration?

            Can I operate my gun on my friend’s property without license and registration?

            Can I transport (not use) my gun through public spaces without a license or registration?

            If I run into a life threatening emergency that can only be remedied by using my gun in a public space without a license or registration, am I justified in doing so?

            If we are to regulate guns the same way as cars, you would be able to carry your gun while walking down the street, and only violate licensing and registration requirements when you draw it in a public place.

            Suffice it to say that cars are regulated much more leniently than guns.

            • Saganaki
              3·
              10 months ago

              In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license. Some states have a grace period, but it is required. Even if you only intend to drive it on your own private property. Is it enforceable? Probably not, but it is the law.

              Not only that, legally you still need to register your car with the state. I’ll concede the “you can buy cars immediately but not guns” argument, but that really only applies to some states. In Wisconsin, you don’t need to register nor is there any waiting period.

              As for the “justified” argument, of course you are justified in those cases—but you can still be charged. Hell, my grandmother had to go to court for driving me (without a license) to the hospital in the 90s.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                3·
                10 months ago

                In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license.

                No you don’t. That’s a requirement for vehicles that will be operated on the road.

                There is no requirement anywhere in the nation for liability insurance on a vehicle that will be operated solely on private property.

                There is no requirement for liability insurance on a tractor, a ride on lawnmower, a dune buggy, a dirt bike, a demolition derby car, or similar unregistered “vehicles”.

                That is simply false.

                As for your grandmother: a “charge” is merely a question for the courts to answer. “Did this woman break the law for driving her daughter to the hospital?”

                If ever forced to use a firearm against another person, any reasonable person would expect a similar question to be asked, and the courts to supply the answer. “Charges” are nothing a reasonable, responsible person need fear.

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
          9·
          10 months ago

          The cost of complying with the dozens of legal hoops is often like 10-20x or more than the price of just a cheap pistol itself.

          Larger financial barriers just mean if you’re rich you can do what you want and if you’re not, you’re fucked, which often leads to people breaking these dumb laws and the cycle getting worse.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            2·
            10 months ago

            Larger financial barriers just mean if you’re rich you can do what you want and if you’re not, you’re fucked,

            This is a very dumb mentality. Like making sure your car is safe and roadworthy costs money. But we don’t view people who drive with broken break lights or worn out tyres so sympathetically.

            • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
              4·
              10 months ago

              A janky car is a danger to others on the road, not having the proper paperwork for your gun only puts yourself in legal danger.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                2·
                9 months ago

                So you think people who haven’t practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???

                • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
                  3·
                  9 months ago

                  Well an apples to apples comparison would be a rusty or dirty gun, which is way more likely to simply not work than it is to malfunction in a dangerous way. A rusty old car has multiple failure points that are dangerous to people who aren’t the driver.

                  As for user competence, I would love to see firearms training become a standard class option in high school, just like driving is now. I’d rather we had a society where neither were necessary, but we’re not anywhere close to that ideal on either front.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          10 months ago

          I think adding undue cost holds weight even though we live in a society currently where people are expecting compensation for their materials and time. One is making it more expensive specifically because “the poors shouldn’t have guns,” one is how much a physical item is sold for. In a post scarcity society where everything is always free; sure I agree, that argument would be silly. But this ain’t that, we ain’t never had that, and I’m 99% sure we never will have that.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          They already have multiple lists. But also they tend to add names ad hoc when that kind of thing starts happening.

      • And009@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        Just like you wouldn’t be driving without a license, but what if criminals have cars?

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      16·
      10 months ago

      Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?

      It’s absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      11·
      10 months ago

      I can’t imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.

      • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        10 months ago

        It’s not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          14·
          10 months ago

          My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you’re just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.

          Just go play roblox or something instead. It’s a better use of your time kid.

          • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            9 months ago

            Labeling everything you don’t agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              2·
              9 months ago

              Well it’s a good thing there’s plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn’t it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn’t mean I say the same about anything and everything.

              Its the typical right wing argument of “not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis” when no one is doing that.

              The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
    9·
    9 months ago

    Well, actually, they cited the state and federal constitution and chose to interpret “well regulated militia” does not accurately describe untrained civilians even though the SCOTUS disagreed. Which is a little more substantial than just Aloha Spirit, imo.