• NeuromancerM
    link
    fedilink
    32 months ago

    No, that isn’t how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.

    One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.

    • @Septimaeus
      link
      -22 months ago

      Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?

      • NeuromancerM
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        Miranda is from the 1960’s.

        Heller is fairly recent but the only reason scotus took the case is states can’t violate the amendments.

        Unless you were born in the 1860’s, it’s been fairly well known that the constitution cannot be violated by states on their citizens.

        • @Septimaeus
          link
          0
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Just so I’m on the same page, we’re still talking about the first 10 (not 13-15, 19, etc.) and the question is whether 2A renders state gun control unconstitutional?

          Edit: Also assuming the latter is true, are we then to read 2a as a guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens carte blanche?

            • @Septimaeus
              link
              22 months ago

              Then we need to overhaul the court systems and multiply their bureaucratic size and process to satisfy the grand jury requirement of 5A and the civil jury trial right of 7A.

              And assuming 2a renders state gun control unconstitutional, I presume then we read 2A as a carte blanche guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens.

              This is what we propose, yes?

              • NeuromancerM
                link
                fedilink
                22 months ago

                By default, it doesn’t render it unconsotitional. It means you can’t violate it by restricting rights.

                We already meet the requirements for 5th and 7th. WHy do you think plea bargains are so popular?

                • @Septimaeus
                  link
                  12 months ago

                  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?

                  • NeuromancerM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 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.

                    I agree that’s the precedent, but I’m unclear where we should place that threshold of violation

                    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.