We already meet the requirements for 5th and 7th.
States do not because as of yet, 5’s grand jury requirement, 6’s criminal jury trial right, and 7’s civil jury trial right have not been interpreted as binding upon the states.
By default, it doesn’t render it unconstitutional. It means you can’t violate it by restricting rights.
I agree that’s the precedent, but I’m unclear where we should place that threshold of violation. Presumably somewhere on the scale of TX to NY? Perhaps… IL?
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Well I learned something new today. I always thought we could ask for a jury in a civil state case. I’ve done federal and you can do bench or jury.
The courts determine and then it rolls up. Also in district appears to radically differ on what is allows or not. To be clear I’m pro-second amendment but I do believe in reasonable restrictions. No felons. Background checks. Etc.
Other people feel any restriction is wrong and I disagree with that.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 7 months ago
(Apologies, got busy at work.) Yes I’d have thought so too. There might be a list which jurisdictions where it’s available.
I suspect the lack of precedent for their incorporation among the amendments binding the states comes down to just the budgetary requirements for expansion. As long as it remains unreasonable or impossible to enforce without effectively being taken over by federal, these exceptions remain.
2A might be similar in principle, since there’s no one-size-fits-all doctrine that can be realistically applied besides either zero regulation or a complete ban, both of which would risk a great deal of legitimacy.
I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency and/or purpose. Guns specifically designed to be dangerous, so it’s not unreasonable to expect those tools have greater oversight.