Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Proposed split

I'm proposing to split this article, as it's way too long! This makes it hard to read, navigate, and edit. I'm not sure exactly how the split would go, but I'm thinking maybe the main article here would be more of a basic overview, and there would be new pages about the history of its enactment and about the present-day debate over its interpretation. ENpeeOHvee 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is long essentially because length is needed to achieve consensus about neutrality balance. I suspect that finding a neutrality agreement about what to split out will not be quick or easy. BruceHallman 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that everyone with their different POV wants to make sure that all their arguments are included, but that doesn't end up accomplishing much if the result is an article that's not accessable to most readers because it's way too long. And I think the readers need to be the first priority. Also, I think NPOV will benefit because shorter articles are easier to check for balance and NPOV. I was actually browsing through this article to see how well it did at presenting both sides, but I had to scroll down like twenty pages to get to where the issues I was looking for were even covered.

Anyhow, I know it'll take some brainstorming and discussion to decided exactly how to do the split, but I think it's neccessary. A basic outline I was thinking was: overview/summary (here), analysis of case law and such, history of enactment, and finally - the most contentious issue would be addressed at an article focused on the arguments made by opponents and supporters of gun control. This last article would address the key debate over the essential meaning of the ammendement and would start and finish with that. Of course the other new articles would be refered to and linked to in the latter. Basically that's my primary goal here. I think that basic debate is very important and needs to be covered in Wikipedia in a way that's accessable to the readers. But the way the article's currently set up, it's just too long and intimidating and there's too much detailed legalistic analysis that people have to wade through to get to the meat of the matter (that stuff should be referred to and linked to for people who want more detail). All and all it's just too much work for someone browsing through here to get an effective overview, so it's pretty clear to me that it needs to be split. ENpeeOHvee 04:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You may, or may not remember the intensity among the editors in months past, replaced, of late, with a relative truce. I credit this truce to a neutrality balance in the article. Any spliting would likely upset that balance and I fear, the truce. I agree the article is very long, but I believe the length is worth it, because it is the cost paid to achieve the balance and maintain the truce. BruceHallman 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to achieve balance among each of several smaller articles if we attempted to split up the present article. I don't believe a split would be worth the effort to attempt to achieve. I tend to agree with Bruce that we have largely achieved a balance in the present, admittedly longish, article. I am not in favor of attempting to split the present article. YAF 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying

I have changed all of the external links and document references in the article into references (this collects all of them at the bottom of the article) in order to give the article a bit more of a "professional" look as well as changed blockquotes into using the Cquote macro as I think it gives a nicer look, i.e. more professional looking. This is strictly a formatting issue and should not change the content. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ninth and fourteenth amendments and Cruikshank

The references to the ninth and fourteenth amendment in the Cruikshank are not suported by the opinion, and in the case of the 14th, the paragraph is off-topic. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove them.

I object. The Ninth and 14th are precisely on topic here. To state otherwise, or to delete these references, is to mislead readers into believing that there is No right to keep and bear arms, since the 2A does not grant a right to keep and bear arms, but protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. YAF 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

There seems to be a relatively easy to correct mistake here, the introduction doesn't summarize the article, just the Amendment, and it appears that this article discusses more than just the literal amendment but discussion of its impact and precendece in history at various times and whatnot. It just seems like something easy to fix, so im putting this article on hold on the nomination page so nobody speed-fails it. Homestarmy 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the "on hold" status only lasts for a week, so eventually it's got to be graded or something. Homestarmy 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GA failed on the account of not answering to the on hold comment given on the talk page. Lincher 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

discussion of Bobkerrigan edit

BobKerrigan made this recent edit which, I believe, should be discussed before proceeding to add into the article, (especially at line 44): BruceHallman 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"(or alternatively, these provisions might all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the collective rights view of the Amendment.) ^[1]

"The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were familiar with history. They knew of individuals who suffered unjustly from bills of attainder such as Thomas Wentworth 1st Earl of Strafford, executed by act of Parliment, and denial of habeas corpus such as James Harrington, imprisoned by Charles II and held without trial or a hearing before a judge. It is unreasonable to imply that the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws was not intended to protect individuals from abuse by government.

"On June 18,1789 Tench Cox, a friend of James Madison, wrote the following under the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian" in the Philadepphia Federal Gazette, "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." On June 24,1789 Madison whote a letter to Cox thanking him. (Young, The Origin of the Second Amendment, 671, 673)"

This passage does not help the narrative flow of this introductory section of the article. Also, I believe the article already has too much back and forth about 'the minds of the Founding Fathers' point of view 'seesaw counter-balance' content, and adding even more does not help the article, especially at the top in line 44. Not to mention, the article at 112kb is already too long, and additions should be justified as necessary in the talk pages, and this addition has not yet been justified. BruceHallman 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce that the article is too long. Some of that stuff should be yanked, other stuff should be in separate articles (but that's OT). I think the first two paragraphs should not be added. I also agree that Coxe's comments should not be in the introduction, however since there are few quotes from the founders or their contemporaries directly addressing the Second Amendment, that the quote should be included in the article, but again, not in the intro.

Tench Cox was arguing the position of only one side of the debate, so you cannot say that his quote is 'directly addressing the Second Amendment'. Rather, the Second Amendment was a compromise reached in August/September of 1889 behind closed doors. To characterize Tench Cox's description of half of that compromise as if it was a description of the whole compromise is not an accurate statement. Indeed, there is a good chance that the June 1789 Tench Cox was not satisfied with the September 1789 Second Amendment compromise. BruceHallman 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tench Cox was arguing the position of only one side of the debate, so you cannot say that his quote is 'directly addressing the Second Amendment.'"

Huh??? If a person speak's his mind on a subject, he's addressing that subject (in this case the 2A) whether it's one sided or not. Surely you meant to state something else.

Again Coxe's statement is very relevant for the following reasons: Tench Coxe was addressing Madison's original proposal which is listed in the article, and several writers/scholars point to Madison's original proposal as solid evidence that a soley military right to keep and bear arms was intended. And again, since comments from the founders and their contemporaries, about the Second Amendment (regardless of which side they may fall on), are sparse, they are worth publishing. (It'd be far better to remove the Jefferson quotes [for example]).

Aditionally you wrote: "To characterize Tench Cox's description of half of that compromise as if it was a description of the whole compromise is not an accurate statement." Coxe is not describing a compromise, he's saying what he thinks the 2A is protecting.

Not true. Tench Cox wrote this commentary several months prior to the Second Amendment, so he simply could not have been refering to the Second Amendment, it did not exist yet. BruceHallman 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post again, I said Coxe commented on Madison's original proposal, and I stated why the quote is relevant.

I did not misunderstand. Madison's original proposal is not the Second Amendment either. Madison's proposal pertains to only half of the compromise that later became the 2A. BruceHallman 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your rebuttal is a logical fallacy -- a red herring. It does not address the reasons I presented as to why the quote should be displayed. To repeat, this article mentions Madison's proposal -- some scholars/writers cite Madison's proposal as evidence that the final version of the 2A was intended to protect a solely military right. Within that context, Coxe's quote is relevant.

You now are saying Tench Coxe was commenting on a proposal, wording with which I could agree. You now are saying that some scholars, I could agree with the word some. Though, your previous wording, "...directly addressing the Second Amendment." remains wrong. Tench Coxe could not have been commenting on the Second Amendment in June, something that did not exist until September. BruceHallman 14:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"You now are saying Tench Coxe was commenting on a proposal, wording with which I could agree." I mentioned it was in response to Madison's proposal a couple of posts ago. Anyways, I guess it doesn't matter that we agree since the original poster of that material doesn't seem to be around. ;-)

I am sorry for misunderstanding you, and after rereading and further thought, I find that I basically agree with you. Indeed, the article is overly long, and some of the less related quotations could and should be edited. BruceHallman 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you add the Coxe quote? I just noticed it in the Others section. If so, you probably want to fix it: "Federal Gazette, June 18,1789, writing in support of the Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights." There is an unnecessary 'the' in that sentence.

The article is not only overly long and contains unnecessary quotes, it's also an abomination (well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration). For example this tidbit, "...or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country." I interpret that sentence as claiming that under English common law, in the late 18th century, there was only a common law right to have arms when under the 'service of the king..." That's is certainly debatable. The recorder of London, the city's legal advisor, in July of 1780 wrote, "The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty... And that right, which every Protestant most unquestionably possesses, individually may, and in many cases must, be exercised collectively..."

Then the next sentence of the article claims, "This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era." I think that statement is misleading as well. Although it's true that gun control laws may not have been subject to 'judicial notice' prior to the Jacksonian era, gun control laws WERE passed prior to the Jacksonian era. For example, there were laws in some towns restricting the amount of gunpowder civilians could store in their dwellings (usually around 3 pounds), and despite some states' Bill of Rights declarations, guns were confiscated from citizens refusing to take loyalty oaths, eg., the Test Acts of Pennsylvania which remained on the books until 1789.

This whole task seems rather hopeless. After all, even if these things could be ironed-out, who's to say a couple months down the road a new group flocks-in and re-writes everything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.223.65 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 July 2006.

The article as it presently exists is too long per Wikipedia guidelines. The high quality is the result of an astonishing amount of hard collaborative work. Hopeless is not a word I would use to describe the present state of the article. BruceHallman 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the main article and these comments yesterday. (The comments were more interesting.) Frankly, I found the article very disappointing--it's biased to downplay the clearly intended right of the people to their personal arms. It's also far too long and poorly organized. Trying to give the complete legislative history in an encyclopedia article is foolish. Use links where appropriate. Your goal should be to present 1) What 2A says. 2) What the people who wrote it thought it said (where those Founders' quotations are pertinent). 3) What the courts have said. 4) What present scholars and other interested parties say. Summarized, not detailed ad infinitum. And PLEASE stop humoring the gun prohibitionists. No objective person can read the historical material and believe that the 2A is intended to protect the right of the state militias to have arms. -- M-K, 19 July 2006

The Supreme Court, in 1939, wrote that: "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [militia] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made." . It is incredible that the Supreme Court fails to meet your "No objective person..." test. BruceHallman 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be jumping to conclusions about what the previous poster said. The poster may be aware of the court rulings, however the courts aren't bound to decide cases based on original intent (although many may feel that when possible, that judicial philosophy should be followed). In other words the original poster may believe that based on original intent the 2A was not preserving a state's right, although some courts have held differently, but not because they based their decision on an honest appraisal of the historial record.

Granted, the Miller Court examined a smattering of the historical historical evidence, but the passage you quote may not mean what you think it means. It's also possible that the chief justice who wrote the Miller opinion (arguably one of the worst chief justices in the Court's history), wrote it to be intentionally ambiguous. For example, one of the justices signing the Miller opinion (Hugo Black) commented on the Second Amendment as follows:

"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute." (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.) (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm)

If you follow the link and read Black's remarks, it is unmistakably clear that he was describing an individual right, not a state's right or the right to have a weapon only when in the service of an organized militia.

I don't have time to engage in lengthy and fruitless discussion here, but I will say that you can always spot those who quake at the thought of an armed citizenry by their willingness to question every one of the twenty-seven words in the Second Amendment. "Militia" means National Guard. "People" means state. "Infringed" means broken. (You know, it all depends on what the meaning of "of" is.) This is all nonsense--we know what the people who wrote the amendment meant from their other writings ("The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson, etc.) Their transparent purpose (whether they realize it or not) is to make us all government-dependent serfs. None of this--nothing that hasn't prominently occurred in the historical literature--belongs in an encyclopedia article.

Miller clearly suggest that the 2A guarantees a personal right to military arms, not that it supports the 2A as a state right. Nowhere in the ruling does the court question the use and possession of firearms by citizens; it merely upholds the restriction against sawed-off shotguns. Efforts to distort the ruling (questionable as it was) are merely more desperate groping on the part of the gunphobes.

By the way, if you want to research the historical usage of words (though that really doesn't belong here, as original research), Google Book Search is a great tool: http://books.google.com/books?as_q=infringe&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1776&as_maxy=1790&as_isbn= --M-K, 20 July 2006

M-K describes "...the people who wrote the amendment...", as if there was a unified consensus among those 'people who wrote'. There was not, so this assumption is fallacious. Indeed, M-K picks and chooses from the writings of that time to support his/her personal opinion. BruceHallman 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite you, Mr. Hallman, to find one quotation from any of the Founders, unambiguously supporting the notion that the Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee the rights of individuals. Good luck. As far as anyone researching this has been able to determine, there are none. --M-K, 20 July 2006.

It appears that your definition of "the Founders" includes only anti-Federalists. My definition includes both Federalists and anti-Federalists. These two schools of thought disagreed about the 'rights of individuals'. Your invite to 'unambiguously' find, I don't accept. What you actually mean involves being unambiguous to you. You already have your mind made up. BruceHallman 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Mr. Hallman; I do have my mind made up. You see, I've read a great deal on this subject and I've concluded that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights weren't writing in code. "State," "militia," and "people" all mean different things; they aren't synonyms of each other, and the Bill of Rights wasn't intended as a tricky word game. Frankly, I'm not surprised you won't try to support your statements with quotations. I don't think you know very much about the history of the subject. James Madison, principal author of the Bill of Rights, was also the principal author of The Federalist Papers--is he one of the Anti-Federalists you object to?

By the way, saying that my mind is made up sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. --M-K, 20 July 2006

From this Wikipedia article about the Democratic-Republican Party (United States), (of which James Madison was a leader), I quote: "... its leadership opposed Federalist policies ...". So yes, it is accurate to describe James Madison as an Anti-Federalist. BruceHallman 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalists :

Anti-Federalism was the name given to two distinct counter-movements in the late 18th Century American politics:

The first Anti-Federalist movement formed in reaction to the Federalist movement of the 1780s. It opposed the creation of a stronger national government under the Constitution and sought to leave the government under the Articles of Confederation intact.

The second Anti-Federalist movement formed in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's aggressive fiscal policies of George Washington's first administration. This movement is sometimes called the Anti-Administration "Party", and it would coalesce into one of the nation's first two true political parties, the Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party).

So you're citing a different Anti-Federalist movement. Madison was a Federalist at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. --M-K, 20 July 2006

I see the distinction, thanks. Regardless, this does not convince me of the validity of your apparent belief, when you describe: "...the people who wrote the amendment..." as if there was a unified consensus (matching your personal beliefs) among those 'people who wrote'. BruceHallman 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Noah Webster argued[1] for a military 'superior to any force that exists among the people'. Superior to a colonial power's standing army, yes, but also superior to (rebellious) individually armed people. And, Alexander Hamilton in his ' watching over the internal peace ' writings in Federalist #29, clearly imagines a military strong enough to control individually armed (rebellious) people. Also, John Adams in his ' Heat and Impatience of the People' letter[2] clearly fears the dangers of rogue armed individuals. This fear of individually armed rouge people clearly existed in 1789. BruceHallman 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotations. However, none of those (at least to the extent quoted) indicate that the 2A does not protect an individual right of the people. Further, all three men are on record as supporting the individual right interpretation:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29. "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I'm still waiting for a single quote from any of the founders that indicates that the 2A was viewed as a right of the states during that period. M-K, 20 July 2006

As I stated previously, I doubt I could change your mind. BruceHallman 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The way you're going about it, I'm afraid you're not likely to change anybody's mind. M-K, 20 July 2006

Which calls attention to the wisdom of the Wikipedia policy "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." You and I both see 'truth' different, it seems. BruceHallman 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why I have asked you to offer some type of verification that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was viewed as a state right rather than a personal right at the time the 2A was adopted. --M-K, 20 July 2006

Thousands of person hours of work, by both of the POV's, has meticulously scrutinized and verified the article as it is presently written. I cannot restate that process here, sorry. And more, your vocabulary (and theory) 'state right' and 'personal right' were not even coined in 1789 so your question has an ambiguous premise. BruceHallman 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the phrase 'bear arms', in 1789 usually implied a military context [3]. A military context is not really 'personal right'. Your modern defintion of 'bear arms' means to 'own arms' or to 'carry arms', this was not the common definition in 1789. BruceHallman 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, as you know, I disagree with this view; 'bear arms' was historically used both in a military context and in the sense of preserving a pre-existing right for individuals which pre-dated the 2A. As the 2A notes, citizens also have the right to 'keep and bear arms'. -- claiming a military context view was dominant is clearly POV and is not widely supported by the historically current views of 1789. As for the claim that the article is riddled with errors, I tend not to believe this, based on the lengthy edit cycles that were executed in the crafting of this article. If there are a few errors, though, these errors need to be identified and discussed here on the talk page, to improve the article. Yaf 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have cited hundreds of 'military context' examples and you have cited a handful which are not. I respect that there are non-military uses of the phrase, but I stand by my evaluation and description "usually implied". Do you disagree that the phrase 'usually implied' military? If yes, how do you explain the hundreds versus a handful disparity? BruceHallman 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thousands of person hours of work, by both of the POV's, has meticulously scrutinized and verified the article as it is presently written."

LOL* As my previous post illustrates (and went unrebutted by you or any one else), the article is riddled with errors (I'm reffering to my block of comments regarding this article as an 'abomination.')

"And more, your vocabulary (and theory) 'state right' and 'personal right' were not even coined in 1789 so your question has an ambiguous premise." Yikes! Surely you jest? One merely needs to look at the Articles of Confederation to see the rights of states mentioned. Further the writings of the Founders and their contemporaries are full of comments regarding the rights of states. Also, again, if you had bothered to read my post referring to this article as an abomination, you would see where the recorder of London describes the right of Englishmen to have arms (in 1780) as both a collective and individual right.

Also, earlier you stated, "It appears that your definition of "the Founders" includes only anti-Federalists. My definition includes both Federalists and anti-Federalists. These two schools of thought disagreed about the 'rights of individuals'. "

What kind of gibberish is that? Three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders (and Federalists), and wrote commentaries on the Constitution, UNAMBIGUOUSLY described the 2A as protecting an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. (Tucker, Rawle, and Story). You haven't offered a SINGLE shred of evidence to support your theory that anybody viewed the 2A as being restricted soley to members of an active militia.

I have more to say, but this will do for now.

(My comments aren't meant to be construed as saying that an anti-individual right viewpoint should not be presented in the article. I'm merely disputing some of the assertions presented on this page as well as several errors in fact on the main article.)

Would anonymous please sign and date his/her posts? I find it hard to follow the train of thought. Also, please define the capitalized noun "the Founders". And, which definition of the word 'abomination' are you using? I have trouble with the biblical, and feel similar about loathing. I don't think that the emotion loathing is helpful towards constructive collaborative and neutral editing. And more, I disagree that what I wrote was gibberish and am reluctant to engage in discussion with that sort of tone or name calling. BruceHallman 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for the tone, but it has been frustrating, and believe me, it's not because we disagree. As for the term "Founders", it refers to the signers and ratifiers of the Consitution. The term 'abomination' as indicated in my post was hyperbole, but if you want a definition, abhorence would do, but again that's slight hyperbole/sarcasm. Also, I created an account, if it doesn't add my moniker at the end of this post, I'll add it. I'd appreciate it if you now, go back and address the issues I raised. Thanks. -- Bill_of_Rights, 21 July 2006.

Mr. Hallman comments: "Also, the phrase 'bear arms', in 1789 usually implied a military context" in yet another attempt to throw sand in the eyes of intellectual opponents. It is clearly established that the phrase encompassed both a military and civilian meaning. As already noted in the article, a number of contemporary state constitutions contained phrases such as "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" --Pennsylvania, 1776. In the Wikipedia article, this is followed by a niggling counter argument that other constitutions use "bear" in a military context. Well, duh--the whole point is that it could be used both ways--and the 2A does NOT limit it to a military context. The most telling argument--which those devoted to undermining the 2A keep ignoring--is that there is no record of anyone viewing the 2A as anything but an individual right until the 20th Century. Anyone possessed of intellectual honesty would have to see that as compelling and decisive in terms of original intent--unless they really don't care what the original intention was and instead are only concerned with finding a justification for banning guns. --M-K, 21 July 2006.

M-K -- In one of your posts, yesterday, there is a quote falsely attributed to Jefferson regarding 'tyranny.' It's thoroughly bogus:http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

and http://guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Also, are you aware that the quote from Sam Adams was a proposed amendment that was rejected by the MA delegates and also voted against by Sam Adams himself? --Bill_of_Rights, 21 July 2006.

Thank you for the consolation, though it is immediately muted when you go on to question my honesty. Wikipedia has a feature that automatically appends your name and date to posts to talk pages. If you type four tildes, the squiggly thing on the top left of my PC based keyboard, when you hit 'save' it automatically fills in your name and time. BruceHallman 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't confuse the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment, while one begat the other, they are different. And certainly the Bill fo Rights is not the Constitution. Neither is this article about 'justification for banning guns'. Many people are confused about this, including, it seems, you. Also, this article is about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, not the constitution of Pennsylvania. I find being accused of 'throwing sand' to be offensive, and not true. I also object to accusations about my intellectual honesty, they also are not true. Also, I do care that the article be WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Intention is very difficult to know after the time has passed. Do you agree? If yes, how can you be so certain that your opinions are correct? BruceHallman 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

":Thank you for the consolation, though it is immediately muted when you go on to question my honesty." This is one of the things I find frustrating when discussing things with you. You're polite, but where on earth in my post did I question your honesty??? --Bill_of_Rights

"Many people are confused about this, including, it seems, you." Classic case of projection. The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution and thus are considered a part of the constitution.

I think you're confusing my posts with M-K's. --- Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights: Thank you for the corrections. I would not have used that Jefferson quote had I realized it was bogus. However, there are ample other legitimate quotes that establish the point I was making. And Adams' proposed text still illustrates his point of view, even if (presumably) he later voted in favor of a different text.

You're welcome. Not trying to be picky. Sometimes folks don't understand the full context of stuff their quoting. For example, with the Adams quote, some anti's use that as further 'evidence' that an individual right was not intended, however, not only was Adams' proposal rejected, but MA did not submit ANY declaration of rights (neither did PA).

Mr. Hallman: "Throwing sand" seems a fairly apt metaphore for what you are doing, as illustrated by such remarks as "please don't confuse the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment, while one begat the other, they are different" and "Neither is this article about 'justification for banning guns'" or "the constitution of Pennsylvania." The Second Amendment is obviously part of the Bill of Rights, and amendments to the Constitution become part of the Constitution; and the Pennsylvania quote was in relation to the use of "bear" in a clearly broader sense. You will not directly address the points made, specifically that there is no evidence that anyone prior to the 20th Century claimed that the 2A was anything other than an individual right. "Intellectual honesty" means, in part, a willingness to be honest with yourself, even when you don't like the result. --M-K, 21 July 2006

Proposing to eliminate or revise text

The following quote is from the Early Commentary on the Second Amendment section: [Section 1202] of the book describes "Power over the Militia" and analyzes the origins of the Second Amendment. Justice Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-federalists who feared federal control over the militia."

First, the section cited clearly is not analyzing the 'origins of the Second Amendment.' That is a definite error of fact. It is clearly stated (and should be obvious) that Story is discussing Art I sec. 8 of the Constitution. Neither is it obvious that Story 'viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists.' Aditionally, that claim is contradicted in Story's dissent in Houston v. Moore.

If nothing else the sentence I quoted needs to be revised. I'm also proposing to eliminate the quote, as well as the text, unless somebody can come-up with a cite, backing up their claim, and in my opinion an absurd interpretation of Story's commentary.

I'm not particularly interested in debating the meaning of that passage. If someone can come up with a legitmate citation, then it's fine to let that Story passage stay, but again the introductory verbiage needs to be re-written. --Bill_of_Rights, July 22, 2006

Re-read the source[4], Joseph Story is clearly describing the origin of the Second Amendment, and he is describing the negotiations and concessions. I don't see your problem. BruceHallman 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I've read it. You're wrong. Starting with sec 1194, it's clear Story is referring to Art I sec 8 of the Constitution. Please find one source that cites the passage in question as referring to an anlysis of the 2A. Again let's see a CITATION!!! --Bill of Rights, July 22, 2006.

edited to add: It is clear you are very confused between the DEBATES OVER THE MILITIA CLAUSES in the constitution and any debate there might have been over the 2A. Again, please show a cite!

(It might help if you visit this URL: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_16s19.html and note the title of the page! And again, Story is not documenting the devlopment of the 2A but rather the debates that took place over the militia clauses.)

To tirelessly repeat... Our opinions don't matter. You need a cite to back-up your interpretation. -- Bill_of_Rights, July, 22, 2006.

While Story is discussing Article I Section 8 he notes that the concerns over it were addressed by one of the amendments to the Constitution. "Hallman's" reading is clearly correct and "Bill of Rights" is just as clearly wrong. I might add that St. George Tucker also linked the 2nd Amendment to Article I, Section 8 concerns and the VA Declaration of Right's provision on the militia. Although often cited by supporters of the individual rights view, Tucker's thought has been subjected to a detailed examination in a recent issue of the William and Mary Law Review which challenges the individual rights reading by placing the often quoted snippets drawn from Tucker in their historical context. If you want evidence of the state's rights view from the ratification debates I suggest you look at Luther Martin's Genuine Information for starters. If you want scholarly authority for the relevance of this passage from Story take a look at Cornell's new book, A Well Regulated Militia24.145.225.95

Please try sticking to the subject at hand. We're not debating what kind of right the 2A addresses. User 24.145.225.95 writes, "While Story is discussing Article I Section 8 he notes that the concerns over it were addressed by one of the amendments to the Constitution." That is clearly wrong. Please cite the passage where that is stated. You cannot, because it is NOT stated (nor is it implied!) You have misunderstood what Story wrote. (I know which passage you're referring to. Assuming you attempt to quote it in your defense, it's very easy to explain where you have completely misunderstood what Story was addressing.) --Bill_of_Rights July, 26, 2006

In his discussion of Article I, Section 8 Story recounts the litany of Anti-Federalist complaints: "It was conceived by the friends of the constitution, that the power thus given, with the guards, reserving the appointment of the officers, and the training of the militia to the states, made it not only wholly unexceptionable, but in reality an additional security to the public liberties. It was nevertheless made a topic of serious alarm and powerful objection. It was suggested, that it was indispensable to the states, that they should possess the control and discipline of the militia. Congress might, under pretence of organizing and disciplining them, inflict severe and ignominious punishments on them. The power might be construed to be exclusive in congress. Suppose, then, that congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence, and prostrate at the feet of the national government. It might also be said, that congress possessed the exclusive power to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, which would take from the states all effective means of resistance. The militia might be put under martial law, when not under duty in the public service." He then goes on to express his confusion that Anti-Federalists could seriously worry about the future of the militia. He then says the following: "It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period." He then discusses the Federalist response and the Amendments to the Constitution which provided the final assurances for Americans. " The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states. The flow of the argument is clear. Anti-Federalist raised objections. These fears were unfounded. Assurances were provided which included amendments to the Constitution, one of which touched on the militia. (emphasis added to original quote) Tucker also linked Article I, Section 8 with the Second Amendment, see the WMQ law review article noted above. Even Rawle accepted that the purpose of the Amendment was defined by the preamble's militia language. I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking it either has to be an individual right or right of the states and missed the new civic model that many scholars have adopted. Tucker, Rawle, and Story all fit that model much better than either the individual or collective model. [User:24.145.225.95|24.145.225.95]]

Section 1202 begins: "It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period."

He continues: "The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive."

The responses to the objections appear to have been sound and sufficient.

"But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished."

Here, Story is merely stating, in a general sense, that some objections were so strong to some portions of the Constitution (such as the one being discussed here), that ammendments were proposed and P-A-R-A-N-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y mentions SOME were accepted. In other words, the main point Story is trying to make in this sentence is how sincere these objections must have been. Story brings-up the amendments, obviously in a general sense to demonstrate the sincerity of the objections, not to expound on the origins of the 2A, thus contradicting the contention that "the concerns over it were addressed by ONE [emphasis added] of the amendments to the Constitution." Story said no such thing. Not even by implication.

If he had been speaking in anything but general terms he would have said the 2A was adopted for that purpose. I could just as easily and erroneously claim Story was referring to amendmends that were NOT adopted since he paranthetcally refers to some amendments being accepted. Especially since he doesn't mention the 2A and only defends the militia clauses as they stood on their own, unamended.

For example there is this proposed and rejected amendment from Virginia: ""11th. That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state."

But again, I don't believe either case is correct. He merely mentions the amendments as evidence of the objectors sincerity.

The discussion that immediately follows addresses concerns with the militia clauses in the Constitution, and Story answers those objections based ENTIRELY on interpreting the mlitia clauses. (If you don't believe that is the case, please post excerpts to the contrary.) Thus giving further credence to the point that the amendments were mentioned only to indicate the sincerity of objections held against parts of the Constitution. NOWHERE IN SECTION 1202 DOES STORY EXPLAIN HOW ANY OF THE (parenthetcially) ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS MIGHT HAVE AMELIEORATED ANY OF THE CONCERNS RAISED.

Thus the claim in the Wiki article that sec 1202 lends itself to support of the other side "in the modern gun debate" as the Wiki article claims, is false.

Again, Story ONLY responds with interpretations of the militia clauses in the constitution. An accurate description of Sec 1202 is that it is Story's analysis and defense of one of the militia clauses.

All you can say with certainty is that amendents were proposed, some were accepted, some rejected, and that, according to Story, ostensibly demonstrated the sincerity of the objections.

Also, at this point, quoting section 1202 does nothing to contradict Story's SPECIFIC comments on the 2A. Nothing else in Story's commentary discusses or even hints at how the 2A might have altered federal control of the militia. Given Story's SPECIFIC commentary on the 2A, Story merely felt that the 2A preserved an individual right for a collective purpose. (At the very least a right to keep arms and render militia service)

Even more erroneous is the article's comment that, "Justice Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-federalists who feared federal control over the militia."

Nowhere in sec 1202 can it be shown where Story draws that conclusion let alone, what IF ANYTHING, was conceded! Story NEVER explicitly makes that claim, and again nowhere can that be inferred from the text. Thus, to state, "clearly" is obviously incorrect let alone a milder claim such as "appears."

And finally, the first sentence from section 1203: "It is hardly necessary to say, how utterly without any practical justification have been the alarms, so industriously spread upon this subject at the time, when the constitution was put upon its trial."

In other words, Story states how groundless were the concerns raised over the potential abuse of the militia clauses. With those words, it is easier to make the implication that Story believed no concessions, with regards to control of the militia, were made via the accepted amendments.

At this point in the commentary, nowhere has Story related how the 2A had anything to do with altering the nature of federal control over the militia. And even if one wants to believe he did, based on Story's 2A comments, the concession was to preserve an individual right for a collective purpose. Again, Story only defended the objections based on his interpretation of the milita clauses. He never, even implicitly, refers to the 2A and how it might have addressed ANY of the objections to the militia clauses.

If Story believed the 2A somehow addressed objections to federal control of the militia, he would have addressed them in 1202 or in his comments on the 2A, but he does not! Which again lends credence to the fact that Story only mentions the amendments to illustrate the earnestness of the objectors. Or if you want to play the implication game, after reading sec 1203, he could be saying that even though amendments that SPECIFICALLY granted more power to the states mlitias were proposed (such as Virginia's above), none were accepted, and for good reason, because the anti-federalists' fears never materialized.

The introductory verbiage to sec 1202 implies that the section somehow contradicts Story's commentary on the 2A as protecting an individual right,but it clearly does not. Story never comments on what kind of "concessions" were made other than that some amendments were approved. If anything, it can be just as easily implied from the entire commentary (including Story's 2A commentary) that no concessions were made, regarding the militia issue, other than that citizens (regardless of whether they were active militia members) could not be disarmed by the federal government and had a right to serve in the militia.

The obove is bolstered by Story's opinion in Houston v. Moore (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/houston.htm) which dealt with conflicts between state and federal militia regulation. After a thorough and divisive consideration of the issue, all three justices who wrote opinions clearly agreed that in event of conflict, state militia regulation must yield to federal law. The Second Amendment, was mentioned only by **Story** and his conclusion was that the 2A was thought to have no important bearing on the matter. Further, Justice Story wrote that if Congress actually did use its Article I powers over the militia, then congressional power was exclusive. There could be no state control, "however small." Again, more evidence that Story's commentary on the 2A and the militia clauses had nothing to do with altering the scheme of federal control over the militia as is asserted in the verbiage of the Wiki article introducing sec 1202.

Now, this all being said, if you have an actual citation from Saul Cornell with wording similar to the Wiki article, one could use his words in introducing sec 1202 or at least provide a footnote giving a citation (with the page number). In that case I don't mind, it's simply another example of crackpot 2A scholarship.

However, if sec 1202 is allowed to stand with that incorrect (in my opinion) interpretation, then who's to say Story's opinion in Houston v. Moore is not also relevant and shouldn't be inserted? (That's a rhetorical question. I don't plan to add it.) I think it'd be better to only quote passages that DIRECTLY address the Second Amendment (yes, that includes those Historical Quotes that don't seem to belong either), and relegate the counter and counter-counter arguments to the footnotes. (The extraneous gun quotes should be a separate page.)

"I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking it either has to be an individual right or right of the states and missed the new civic model that many scholars have adopted." I'm glad you prefaced that with an "I think." I'm familiar with the writings of David C. Wiliams and others.

"Tucker, Rawle, and Story all fit that model much better than either the individual or collective model." I disagree. I think the model that an individual right was preserved for a collective purpose comports best with all of the evidence. But again, this isn't the place to discuss those issues.

Edited to add: If one is attempting to connect the dots with Story's sec 1202, it's simply an erroneous way to do it. I don't have any objections to the attempt, necessarily, but there are better passages/ways of doing that, and of course different sides will draw different conclusions (but that's a different story [no pun]). Also, in an article of this nature, depending on how it's done it may be something that should be relegated to the foonotes, then again, if it's done well, maybe not. --Bill_of_Rights, July 27, 2006

Your suggestion that Story only mentions the amendments, including the 2nd, to prove that Anti-Federalist fears were genuine seems pretty weak. Story links Federalist counter arguments and the Amendments as a response to these concerns. Your reading ignores the content of those critiques and assumes that Story was only writing about their feelings about the threat to the militia. Talk about misreading 19th texts from a modern perspective—do you have any serious training in history? Another place where you go wrong is in assuming Story’s concession must have meant he accepted the full force of the Anti-Federalist critique when all he was doing is saying that fears over militia disarmament could be met with the more general protections provided by the 2nd Amendment. The contradiction with Houston only exists if you make the mistake I have just identified in your logic. If you read the text in historical context as I suggested there is no tension between Houston and his analysis. When Story discussed the Second Amendment his focus is squarely on the militia and the threat of a standing army. He never mentions a private right to have guns outside of the context of the militia.

I am glad you have read Williams. His book is now "history" and has been shunted aside by much better recent scholarship. You don’t seem to be aware that a number of prominent former supporters of the Standard Model, including Levinson and Lucas Powe, have embraced the newer model found in the work of Uviller/ Merkel, Konig, and Cornell. I suggest you look at David Hardy’s blog on Cornell’s new book if you think this scholarship is “crackpot.”24.145.225.95

"Your suggestion that Story only mentions the amendments, including the 2nd, to prove that Anti-Federalist fears were genuine seems pretty weak."

No weaker than your assertion, except I didn't resort to attacking the messenger when I couldn't attack the message.

"Story links Federalist counter arguments and the Amendments as a response to these concerns."

True.

"Your reading ignores the content of those critiques and assumes that Story was only writing about their feelings about the threat to the militia."

Nope. I didn't ignore the content of those critiques and you have apparently misunderstood the context of my argument. To repeat the context: Section 1202 does nothing to support the claim in the Wiki article that 1202 lends itself to support of the other side "in the modern gun debate."

"Another place where you go wrong is in assuming Story’s concession must have meant he accepted the full force of the Anti-Federalist critique..." Wrong again. Context check follows...

"When all he was doing is saying that fears over militia disarmament could be met with the more general protections provided by the 2nd Amendment."

While I disagree with your claim that is what Story is implying, for arguments sake, let's say your statement immediately above is correct. That statment is entirely different from the statment I am complaining about in the Wiki article. Your statement that "fears over militia disarmament..." could be used to support either the argument that -- the 2A protects an individual right for a collective purpose OR a more restricted 2A. And as a result, sec 1202 adds nothing to the content of the page. However, if you claim section 1202 demonstrates the 2A is restricted to active militia members only, you have failed to show it.

"The contradiction with Houston only exists if you make the mistake I have just identified in your logic. If you read the text in historical context as I suggested there is no tension between Houston and his analysis."

I never said there was a conflict between what Story wrote and Houston. But again that is a switch of context. The tension exists with the wording in the Wiki article describing 1202. It can be read as implying the 2A somehow reduced the degree of control the national government had over the militia. But since you seem to agree the 2A doesn't do that then sec 1202 becomes superfluous. So I'm sure you'll next undoubtedly claim that 1202 shows the RBKA was intended for active militia members only, right? Which brings us full circle... there is nothing in the passage to show that. The argument is indeed circular. And please don't throw any more red herrings out there. 1202 simply does not add support for the claim that the 2A was intended to apply to active militia members only, since a broad RKBA ensures the continuance of the militia at least as well as a restricted RKBA.

"When Story discussed the Second Amendment his focus is squarely on the militia and the threat of a standing army. He never mentions a private right to have guns outside of the context of the militia."

"The passage from Story, shows CLEARLY that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights." --- Andrews v. State (1871) Tennessee Supreme Court (emphasis added)

"I am glad you have read Williams. His book is now "history" and has been shunted aside by much better recent scholarship." Note, I said Williams and others. I thought you'd catch the implication that I've been tracking that train of thought and it's evolution.

"You don’t seem to be aware that a number of prominent former supporters of the Standard Model, including Levinson and Lucas Powe, have embraced the newer model found in the work of Uviller/ Merkel, Konig, and Cornell."

Red herring...yawn. I haven't read Uviller/Merkel's book, but have read some reviews... There appears to be the usual twisting, shifting and distorting.

"I suggest you look at David Hardy’s blog on Cornell’s new book if you think this scholarship is 'crackpot.'" I didn't say his work was crackpot. I said it was if he used the same verbiage to describe sec 1202 that appears in the Wiki article. I have read some of his stuff. One article from 1999 comes to mind and his comments regarding the Test Acts of PA. I was not impressed. --Bill_of_Rights 7/28/2006

Here is what the article says "Justice Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared federal control over the militia." You keep trying to twist this historical claim and force it into the modern individual/collective rights debate. Story did not discuss who would have standing to make a Second Amendment claim-- that is an issue that gets modern lawyers worked up. His purpose in this section was to discuss the historical roots of this provision and relate it to the argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Your analysis is a classic illustration of the fallacy of law office history. Get the history right and then, and only then, try and figure out how one should apply it to modern problems. I am amazed that you would cite an 1871 case to explain the thought of a text written almost forty years earlier? Your argument fails several basic tests of historical logic. The quote form Story and the phrase you take issue with belong in the essay because they show that arguments about states' rights were relevant to the original understanding of the Second Amendment. There was a strong version of this argument- restore control of the militia to the states-- this argument clearly failed-- there was also a weaker version-- by including the Second Amendment the state militias would not be disarmed-- while Story thought this fear exaggerated he noted that the Second Amendment was intended to assauge it. I suggest you take a close look at Rakove's Chicago-Kent essay which is the most careful exploration of the original debate that led up to the Second Amendment. 24.145.225.95

"'Here is what the article says 'Justice Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared federal control over the militia.' You keep trying to twist this historical claim and force it into the modern individual/collective rights debate."

Nope. You keep ignoring the part which I have quoted several times that says sec 102 lends itself to support of the other side "in the modern gun debate."

"There was a strong version of this argument- restore control of the militia to the states-- this argument clearly failed-- there was also a weaker version-- by including the Second Amendment the state militias would not be disarmed-- while Story thought this fear exaggerated he noted that the Second Amendment was intended to assauge it."

Same circular argument. Sec 102 doesn't doesn't indicate, either way whether an individual right was preserved for a collective purpose or the right was restricted to active militia members only.

Which is why you keep resorting to red herrings (ie. refer to other sources irrelevant to this issue). Sec 102 adds nothing to the debate, unless one believes the 2A had nothing to do with preserving the militia, which nobody is seriously suggesting.

---Bill_of_Rights 7/27/2006

Gun rights advocates have claimed that the states' rights argument is a modern invention. This is just silly. States' rights was central to virtually every issue in the early republic. Rather than use the caricature of collective rights theory elaborated by its opponents you have a responsibility to use the version articulated by its supporters. Collective rights theorists have never claimed that the Second Amendment restored state control. In fact they have always argued in terms very close to Story. Story's quote clearly suggests that he was aware of the core of the states' rights argument (the fear of federal disarmament of the militia). It further shows that Story believed that the Second Amendment and the arguments made by Federalists had attempted to deal with this critique. The fact that Story believed this does not mean he thought that the Second Amendment restored control of the militia to the states-- that is modern individual rights confusion that stems from their misreading of Anti-Federalism. (None of the IR literature is up to date on recent scholarship on Anti-Federalism--) To understand this historical debate you must recognize that the fear of federal disarmament of the militia prompted two types of proposals from Anti-Federalists - calls for a return of state control- and calls for explicit protection for the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Both of these demands were made by VA and PA-- yet only the latter was taken seriously by Madison and Story. Your argument is simply a rehash of IR confusions --if this essay is to be balanced it must deal with all sides of the debate and must not adopt the IR view of the Collectiver rights theory when presenting it. 24.145.225.95

Once again a strawman is presented. The Story passage comports with an individual rights view as well. Nothing above (excluding the non-historical snide remarks) contradicts an individual rights interpretation, except the belief that the Virginia proposal restricted the right to keep arms to active militia members. Thus once again, the Wiki article claiming the passage lends itself to the other side of the debate is false.

Few high-schoolers reading that passage with the erroneous and inadequate "explanation" will understand it.

"if this essay is to be balanced it must deal with all sides of the debate"

Maybe it should be better articulated.

---Bill_of_Rights July, 29, 2006

Just noticed the verbage was changed a couple of days ago to NPOV. That's better, although I still think it will fly over the heads of most high school and college kids. But if you guys want to leave it that way, so be it. ---Bill_of_Rights, July 30, 2006

Patrick Henry quote

Here is a link to the source for that Patrick Henry quote, I don't see that quote on the page[5]. BruceHallman 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You talking about this quote?

"My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants." --Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 5,1788 [89]"

If so you went to the wrong page. Your link is for page 49. The citation is for page 47 which is where the quote appears. -- Bill_of_Rights 3 August 2006

No, I was refering to this [6] (seemingly incorrect) Patrick Henry quote. BruceHallman 15:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a direct connection between the "My great objection to this government is..." quote and the 2A. Why should it be included in the article? I see that any connection is at best implicit and, as such, may violate the WP:NOR rule. Are there objections to deleting it? Also, are people willing to give a look at the 'quotations' section and try to trim it down, in the interest of making the article shorter? BruceHallman 15:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to deleting it.

LOL -- yep, that's a doctored quote. The actual quote can be viewed at p. 386 of Elliot. And as I've said before a lot of those quotes should be expunged from that page since most don't deal directly with the Second Amendment (if somebody wants to put them on a separate page and place the quotes in their proper context that would be better). But then, sticking to that rule ('DIRECT' connection [your words]), I'd say the same thing for the Joseph Story passage that comments on Art 1 Sec 8 clause 16 of the const. ;-) --- Bill_of_Rights 4 August 2006

Only gentleman could bear a sword

At some point, no less than a century prior to the adoption of the Constitution, a nobleman was expected to wear a sword. I speculate that that understanding -- that nobles were armed while the populace was not -- remained in American culture and was at least partially responsible for the Constitution disallowing a ban on bearing weapons by the populace.

Context is everything. RussNelson 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Russ, This is not a board for posting opinions on one's interpretation of the Second Amendment. This space is for discussing the how, what, etc., of materials to be included in the article. I will take the liberty of striking this section in a few hours. It's a waste of space... Bill_of_rights Aug, 4, 2006

In general, cultural context, if sourceable, is indeed germane to the article's discussion of the development of a political instrument or law. Especially with this subject. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In general yes, but it doesn't look like the poster was proposing any new text, rather he appeared to be expressing an opinion. Unless anybody objects, I'd like to remove this section. ---Bill_of_rights Aug, 4, 2006

If it mostly rings true but is unsourced, you could add a {{fact}} tag instead of outright deleting it. This would give a chance for the contributor of this material or others to properly source it. Just a suggestion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was a bit confused... I was thinking this was text added to the article. Since it's not, I absolutely disagree with removing the comment. When someone leaves an opinion like that, it should be taken as a request to cover what they're talking about. Now, whether it gets taken up or not is a different consideration. Removing it, especially since it appears to be a good faith addition related to the article, wouldn't be kosher. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more extensive coverage of pre-revolutionary (US) European limitations on arms ownership. And other regions, such as Japan. Perhaps in Right to bear arms? My impression is such limitations were used extensively, and explicitly, by monarchy and aristocracy to contain peasantry, and by aristocracy against itself in sectarian conflict. This article touches on it, but there is a lot more material out there. The extisting text doesn't even mention France. 66.30.117.127 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes moved to Wikiquote

The purpose of Wikiquote is to house exactly the kind of collection of quotes that occupied the bottom half of this article; those quotes have now been moved to a robust Wikiquote article on this topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check, but I'll bet that Tenche Coxe quote was moved along with the others. Since that quote is relevant to the 2A, it should appear somewhere in the main article, either as a footnote to Madison's original proposal or in the main body. --- Bill of Rights 6 August 2006.

"No evidence" versus "no case"

I removed the verbiage about "no evidence" having been presented. Here's why.

The quotation is correct. However, "evidence," as a general rule, is not "presented" to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears arguments of law, and does not decide questions of fact (i.e., does not generally admit "evidence").

Although it's unclear from the context whether the Court was treating the term "evidence" here to mean something that would have been subject to determination by a trier of fact (such as a jury at the trial court level) or, alternatively, was using the term "evidence" more loosely to refer to something that could have been determined as a question of law, to be decided by the Court itself (and thus something that could be heard by the Court), the safer assumption is that the Court was referring to what appears to be the case: that the trial court threw the case out -- at the defendant's (or defendants') request, ironically -- before any evidence pro or con could really be presented. For Wikipedia editors, most of whom are not lawyers, I realize this may be a bit hard to follow.

Suffice to say that Miller is an unusual case in the sense that nobody representing the defendants showed up at the Supreme Court. The point seems to be that the case might have turned out differently had someone for the defendants' side showed up. So, the rest of the paragraph is indeed relevant, and stands on its own quite aside from the correct but somewhat misleading verbiage about "no evidence." Yours, Famspear 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: Appellate courts such as the Supreme Court do look at "evidence" and do talk about "evidence" in their decisions, but not in exactly the same way that trial courts do. An appellate court generally does not hear testimony or receive things (the gun, the knife, etc.) into evidence. Appellate courts may review the trial court's record and determine whether a particular item of evidence should or should not have been admitted at the trial, but the appellate court generally does not admit the evidence itself or weigh it or decide questions of fact. If the appellate court rules that the trial court made an error of law in admitting (or in refusing to admit) a particular piece of evidence, the appellate court may then remand the case back to the trial court. Yours, Famspear 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Second post-script: Well, once I get started it's hard to stop. The other point I want to make is that sometimes appellate courts (such as the Supreme Court) will look at the evidence admitted in a trial court proceeding and decide as a matter of law that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed because the evidence presented at the trial simply does not support the judgment of the court. For example, a guilty verdict and the related judgment of conviction might be thrown out because the appellate court determines, as a matter of law that the evidence presented was simply insufficient to support the the guilty verdict and judgment. Again, however, the appellate court does not hear "testimony," etc., but instead renders a decision based on the evidence that was (or should have been) admitted at the trial. Yours, Famspear 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)