5 ms·

It's not going to be easy to pass this kind of bill. James Tresmond, a gun rights lawyer, said it violates multiple constitutional rights. "The first, the seco

by Para2016 8y ago

It's not going to be easy to pass this kind of bill. James Tresmond, a gun rights lawyer, said it violates multiple constitutional rights. "The first, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, and the 14th amendment," Tresmond said.

i_am_nomad 8y ago
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have been under full assault since the early 2000s.
- Para2016 8y ago
  Absolutely. I simply pasted a quote from the article and got negative points from it. I like HN, it's exposed me to a lot of interesting concepts I didn't know about. But, there's a large group of users here that actively suppress opinions or thoughts that don't align with their own. I suppose that's inevitable in a comment system based on points.
- cyphar 8y ago
  The only amendments in the bill of rights that are still somewhat protected in the US are the 1st and 2nd (and maybe the 9th and 10th, depending on your political view). The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms), 6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring 6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all the time. Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very least, it's in dispute.
  - jdhn 8y ago
    >The 3rd is outdated I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in bases than my house.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The point is that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore given that the military has such an enormous budget they have no need to quarter in your house. The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under the 14th amendment). I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
      - lj3 8y ago
        Initially, I balked at your suggestion that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized you're right. In the age of 4th generation insurgency warfare, housing your military in private homes is a very, very bad idea.

i_am_nomad 8y ago

The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have been under full assault since the early 2000s.

Para2016 8y ago
Absolutely. I simply pasted a quote from the article and got negative points from it. I like HN, it's exposed me to a lot of interesting concepts I didn't know about. But, there's a large group of users here that actively suppress opinions or thoughts that don't align with their own. I suppose that's inevitable in a comment system based on points.
cyphar 8y ago
The only amendments in the bill of rights that are still somewhat protected in the US are the 1st and 2nd (and maybe the 9th and 10th, depending on your political view). The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms), 6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring 6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all the time. Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very least, it's in dispute.
- jdhn 8y ago
  >The 3rd is outdated I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in bases than my house.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The point is that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore given that the military has such an enormous budget they have no need to quarter in your house. The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under the 14th amendment). I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
    - lj3 8y ago
      Initially, I balked at your suggestion that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized you're right. In the age of 4th generation insurgency warfare, housing your military in private homes is a very, very bad idea.