Reply #24: I won't "recycle the same assertions" but I seek clarification on one point....

[Jim Lane]

The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in civil (i.e., non-criminal) cases where more than $20 is at issue. The Supreme Court held in 1916 that that right was not incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (see ). I'm no big Seventh Amendment maven but I think that's still good law.

Does that mean that a pro-RKBA Democrat, who believes the Supreme Court should overturn the Chicago gun ordinance at issue in McDonald, is being hypocritical if he or she then asserts "that federal law does not trump state law involving the right to" a civil jury?

On my view, of course, there's no hypocrisy or inconsistency. You simply apply the standards for incorporation and conclude that one amendment is incorporated and the other isn't. By contrast, it seems that your interpretation of your stance on McDonald would constrain you to call for overruling the decades-old precedents concerning civil juries. I wonder if you agree that that's a consequence of your views about gun control.