• Septimaeus@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts primarily the federal government, save for 5A and 7A and using either clause to use 2A to override state gun control by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.

      • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 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        Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review.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?

          • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 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@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 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?

                  • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 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?