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 5 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 5 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.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 months ago
A gun should be dangerous. That’s its job.
I’m for reasonable restrictions and I’ll admit that’s a hard term to define without seeing the law proposed. I have no issue with a background check being required for all purchases. With the internet. It’s not that hard now.
I am not against permits for CCW. As long as it’s an easy process that doesn’t make overly difficult. In Nevada I had to take a class , shoot a couple of times and apply for the permit.
I don’t mind bump stocks being banned.
Things like that I find reasonable. Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
Yeah I never get into the debates about weapon class allowance, because it always amounts to an arbitrary threshold on the scale of potential kill rate, and grocery shoppers with desert storm kits on their shoulder do all the talking anyway.
You mentioned training. That’s a reg I think my fellow progressives should back. Anti-gun messaging clearly isn’t working. Instead, why not encourage citizens to own guns, just shift focus to the discipline needed to maintain the privilege?
By discipline I mean require training, make it rigorous and free, and make regular shooting mandatory for permit renewal. Require inspections for proper maintenance and adherence to storage safety protocols. Offer specialist certifications for more exotic kits. Basically, make sure would-be gun owners respect the weapon, understand the responsibility they’re taking on, and are equipped to use them safety and proficiently.
Even my most gung-ho 2a friends would be all for this. But they take guns seriously and aren’t contributing to the statistics. I suspect the actual unsafe assholes wouldn’t bother owning a gun if there was work involved.
It’s just a thought. Probably not a popular one.