[Viva Le Dissention]

Jim, you're just wrong, I'm sorry.

The Supreme Court has not "incorporated" the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, as it has the 1st, 4th, 5th, parts of the 6th and 7th, etc.

Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

[jjm2111]

Just because the Supreme Court hasn't "incorporated" the second like the others, doesn't mean they are right. The SC avoids the issue. Why? I don't know. But legally a federal protection trumps state regulation. Why the feds ignore the second is beyond me.

[Gunslingr3]

The Supreme Court has not "incorporated" the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, as it has the 1st, 4th, 5th, parts of the 6th and 7th, etc.

Let's walk through some simple reasoning: The 2nd amendment is a part of the Constitution of the Unites States. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I reread the Constitution, including the amendments which are a part of it, and can't find anywhere that suggests the Supremacy Clause only applies to parts of the Constitution that judges declare it to. Thus, "This Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What part of that does the CA attorney general not understand?

[bonesmccoy]

I just reviewed the California State Constitution. There is no right to bear arms in the State of California's constitution. This should be a major campaign issue.

[Ditto]

Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

Because it is not a criminal charge which is the only time a defendent has a constitutional right to a jury trial.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

"Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?"

It can't. If you insist on a jury trial the State must oblige. But the State cam carge a pretty large court fee for such a trial. There was such a case once when I was on jury duty. I wasn't on the jury but I heard about it. The defendant needed to win it so that he could use the desision to win a large civil suit. Seems his accident caused some extreme damage to a building, fire I think, that his insurance didn't cover. Most of us do not chose to because it's not worth the trouble.

[TC Rider]

Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

Because driving on state highways is a priveledge, not a right.

You have a choice when it comes to traffic court, play by their rules or surrender your driver's license.

The 2nd Ammendment is a right, not a priveledge to be portioned out by some dim bulb politician.

[El Gato]

The Supreme Court has not "incorporated" the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, as it has the 1st, 4th, 5th, parts of the 6th and 7th, etc.

But they don't have to. The "incorporation doctrine, mostly a way to avoid the requirements of the 14th amendment, has used the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment. The court has pretty much ignored the "privelidges and immunities clause. The second amendment is an "immunity" within the context of the 14th amendent.

Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

Because, strictly speaking traffic court is not a criminal court, nor is it a suit at common law, which via the 6th and 7th amendments require a jury trial (if the accused or object of the suit want one that is)