Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

US v Walters not "YET" a Second Amendment case and should be removed

The link provided as backup points to a Motion filed pre-Heller

http://www.vid.uscourts.gov/dcopinion/08cr0031_united_states_et_al_v_walters_order_20080715100550.pdf

where the judge states

Walters only states that he "reserves the right to challenge" the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.

In other words according to the judge Walters has not challenged it on Second Amendment grounds and the judge is not considering the Second Amendment in his decision to NOT dismiss the case. Also the judge does not reference Heller in his rejection of the Motion to dismiss. Only prior cases.

Unless someone can find later court documents showing that Walters did challenge his indictment on Second Amendment grounds I believe that references to this case should be removed from the article.141.154.9.241 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Still waiting for either objections to deleting references to this case or additional information that Walters did at some point invoke his Second Amendment rights, making this a Second Amendment case.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the document for US v Walters to confirm judge said that Walters "reserves the right to challenge" on Second Amendment grounds and has therefore "not yet challenged"? I checked the website and found two other documents and then zip. My guess is that Walters either plea bargained or the charges were dropped. Most likely the former. Does anyone feel that the article reference to this case needs to stay or objects to its removal? A plea bargain is unlikely to originate case law or even commentary on case law.68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for any objections to getting rid of the reference to Walters. It has now been 3 weeks since I brought up this issue. Don't bitch about getting "consensus" if you can't be bothered to participate in the debate.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored that case. In that decision, the judge stated:

Walters now argues that both counts in the indictment should be dismissed because they violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In his motion, Walters neglects to substantiate that argument with citations to any authority. Instead, Walters points to District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268 (June 26, 2008), a case that was pending before the Supreme Court at the time his motion was filed. Walters states only that he “reserves the right to challenge” the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.(Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2.)

The judge said he was bound by Third Circuit case law and so denied Walters's motion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is not how the judge ruled but on what he ruled. As I pointed out above, and you just confirmed the judge stated Walters states only that he “reserves the right to challenge” the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. It is my understanding that if a person reserves the right to challenge, he has in fact not yet challenged. If your understanding differs from mine, please advise on what that difference is.141.154.15.141 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the bigger issue is whether the district courts (post-Heller) have ruled that the "sensitive places bans" are constitutional. And, they have done so repeatedly. In US v. Walters 3rd circuit "sensitive places, school zone" (as the article says), and also with US v Davis 9th Circuit "sensitive places, airplane", and also with "US v Lewis" 3rd Circuit "sensitive places, school zone". At least three "post Heller" district court rulings have upheld the constitutionality of gun bans in sensitive places. What is the problem here? Should we expand the article to include mention of all three of these cases? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No regardless at all. This article is (or at least should be) about subjects touching on the Second Amendment. If Walter did not challenge on Second Amendment grounds then the case does not belong in the article. Period End Of Conversation. Besides, the school zone ban was struck down decades ago. Get with the times.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive use of Saul Cornell"

Cornell currently shows 7 cites in the article. That is more then 2 times the number for the next most cited author. It seems we have an "excessive" reliance on a single source. Considering that Mr. Cornell has received over $400,000 in funding from a Foundation promoting gun control, his works are arguably all paid propaganda with him acting as a "cutout" to hide the connection and all need to carry a warning stating that they are either "unreliable" or "paid propaganda". His book also seems to have been POORLY received per Amazon book ranking. Probably due to the stench arising from it. Anyway I continue to have POV issues with this article due to the excessive weight Cornell has on it.68.160.135.82 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

without regard to your other points, amazon book rankings are completely meaningless as a metric. same goes for google search result counts. cornell may or may not be reliable for any number of reasons, but book sales aren't one of them. Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor book sales are an indication that the paperback reprint of the book was probably subsidized by his "sugar daddy". Most book publishers won't reprint something that rates so poorly on the sales charts because they would LOSE MONEY. Cornell's book was first published in hardcover then in paperback. If the hardcover did as badly as the paperback is currently doing, then either Cornell, or his "sugar daddy" spent money getting it republished. Cornell spending his own money is OK, but if the money came from the "sugar daddy" it is not. Current sales rank for the paperback is 557,095. For a book that came out 6 months ago that is WORSE then pathetic. Dos for Dummies has a better sales record (currently 53,264), and is for a Computer Operating System a decade dead. Chances are excellent that most copies of the reprint went to judges, lawyers, and public libraries for free in order to push the gun control party line.

http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-Founding-Fathers-Origins/dp/0195341031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236011561&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/DOS-Dummies-Dan-Gookin/dp/0764503618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236011506&sr=1-168.160.135.82 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please rephrase your complaint based on specifics in WP:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think excessive use of paid propaganda covers it.68.160.141.162 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm still anxiously waiting to hear under what WP:Policy one can claim that a single citation constitutes "excessive reliance". Anastrophe (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the first sentence in my complaint above, there are currently 7 cites to Cornell, not 1 as you seem to think. See reference 20, 21, 22, 62, 69, 71 and 90. Further I can hardly be blamed for not answering a question you never asked. Your complaint above had to do with Amazon book rankings and not with the number of cites.68.160.141.162 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i was referring to another editor's assertion that the single citation referencing guncite constituted "excessive reliance". sorry for the confusion. Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem!68.160.141.162 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight given to tiny minority opinion

Cornell "Civic Right" opinion is given undue weight in the article as it is equivalent in popularity to "Flat Earth" and "Hollow Earth" theories of the Earths shape.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.68.160.176.7 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Vastly small? I don't think so. For your logic to be credible you need to show your sourcing, and you do not. It appears that you are comparing the view presented by Cornell in his book to your personal views. And, the concept presented by Cornell is hardly a tiny minority, see for instance the "civic model" concept of Robert Shalhope, as analyzed by Georgia Warnke in her book ISBN 9780520216334, page 185, published by University of California Press. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what! Why don't you find me another source for guns being a "civic right". Should be easy if his opinion is as widespread as you ave been programed to think. If you can't that just proves my point68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I found three, (Cornell, Shalhope, Warnke) now you want more. OK, add to the list of scholars who describe this "civic right" model: David Konig, Richard Primus, Richard Uviller and William Merkel[1] for a total of seven. Still, you have identified zero sources for your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta Laugh! The link you provide references Cornell as the source. Back down to 1 source for the idea. Care to try again?68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta Laugh some more! A recheck of the link you provide shows no trace of the term "civic right" so its BOGUS! Looks like the "civic rghts" view is about as popular as the "Hollow Earth" view of the earth. In your next attempt, assuming you make one, PLEASE make sure that the term "civic right" shows up and that it does not reference Cornell. Other wise I will also consider it BOGUS!68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta laugh yet again! A check of the other articles in that issue shows one by Cornell on the second amendment. His "civic right" view is so out there that even he himself does not reference it.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/comment_cornell.html68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at today's (Wednesday's) New York Times crossword puzzle, there is a clue asking what the first American civil rights group is. The answer I believe is the NRA.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

noted. what is the relevance? i see none. other editors see none. this is trivia, that's why it's been struck from the talk page several times, pursuant to WP:FORUM. an unfinished crossword puzzle that you believe contains an answer that the NRA is a civil rights group has precisely what to do with the civiC right view of the second amendment that's being discussed here? how is a crossword puzzle a reliable source on any matter, per WP:RS? have you reviewed the answers to yesterday's crossword puzzle yet? was your belief correct? if so, great, you got an answer right on a crossword puzzle. we do sincerely congratulate you. perhaps this would be best discussed on the talk page for Crossword puzzle?? Anastrophe (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The point he is trying to make is kind of subtle. That, in the US, the 2A topic is inextricable from public civil rights advocacy, and the most well known 2A advocacy group is the NRA. Certainly the NYT crossword puzzle is a well known and reliable indicator of the zietgeist. And, per my editorial judgment, the article has suffered from the scrubbing of neutral coverage of 2A gun rights advocacy groups and the 2A lobbying activity of the NRA-ILA from the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for illuminating the subtleties of his WP:POINT. its relevance to this article has still not been demonstrated. crossword puzzle answers? seriously? also scrubbed from the article is coverage of gun control advocacy groups, and their 2nd amendment lobbying and advocacy activity. advocacy groups are not of significant importance to this article. they are of importance to Gun Politics et al, however. Similarly, there's little to no coverage of advocacy groups in the articles for the first, fourth, fifth, etc amendments to the constitution. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a "civic" right, not a "civil" right. Sounds like a nice little splitting of hair. "Civil" and "civic" are defined as synonyms here. P.S. A few people on this talk page might want to check out our own policy WP:CIVIL. Have fun with your culture war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Checked amici brief for Heller co-authored by Cornell. No reference to a "civic right" yet again! Still looks like that view is about as popular as the "Hollow Earth" theory of the shape of the Earth.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf68.160.176.7 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A non sequitur . SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for yo to provide another source. WIKI SEZ if its common you can easily find sources.! If you can't then it's not! So far you can't so it's not!68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well well-- given the amount of energy being used to discredit Cornell it would seem to me that his work is deeply disturbing to pro-gun rights advocates who can't argue the facts so they have turned to a conspiracy theory to discredit him. The Joyce money argument is absurd for the following reasons.

The grant would not have been accepted by a public university if it had any ideological strings attached.

Joyce funded Chicago Kent which defended the traditional collective rights view

Cornell's center when it was running listed scholars on all sides of the issue and the conference he organized included such notable gun rights advocates as Brannon Denning, Raymond Diamond and supporters of the individual rights view such as Sanford Levinson and Jim Jacobs.

Cornell's own work challenges the traditional collective rights point of view-- so are we to believe Joyce funded Chicago Kent and then turned around to pay Cornell to challenge that view?

I note that Cornell has a new article up on Northwestern law review's on-line version-- clearly his scholarly authority has not been much impacted by this discussion

The civic rights model is often times described as the limited individual rights model so actually if you look closely it has been embraced by a number of scholars--and one member of the Supreme Court Justice Stevens-- Cornell's work was positively reviewed by two supporters of the individual rights view-- Sanford Levinson and Robert Churchill-- the only negative comments have come from gun rights advocates with close ties to the gun lobby such as David Hardy-- and even his twisted review of Cornell's book acknowledged that it made an important contribution to the debate. Can we please move on to some serious discussion of the history and law?Philo-Centinel (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether it disturbing or even whether Cornell is so full of S*&^t that his eyes are brown. The question is whether his opinion is an insy wincy teeny tiny minority opinion. So far it looks like it is.68.160.176.7 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"looks like it is"? Says who? I have identified seven scholars published by several well respected academic publishing houses discussing this "civic" model. You have not identified any sourcing what-so-ever that you are reading when you make a judgment of "looks like it is", what are you looking at? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sez the fact that you still haven't been able to find a second source.68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence of "civic right" being an insy winsy itty bitty teeny tiny minority opinion. Google shows a whole 564 hits on the terms "civic right" combined with "second Amendment".http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22civic+right%22+%22second+amendment%22&btnG=Search68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your research using Google search counts is WP:Original Research and carries no weight per policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to advise me how hoe else I can check on whether an opinion has a wide following or is a small minority opinion.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are multiple adherents to an opinion, there should be numerous cites possible showing that a wide following exists. Have added sources, such that 3 sources now make the case for a "civic duty" interpretation. The presence of multiple adherents doesn't make an opinion correct, it only makes the case that there is a wide following. Yaf (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over the civic RIGHT interpretation and not the civic DUTY interpretation.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if AnonIP was to mention the reliable sources, books etc., that he is reading for the source of his ideas. Or, are his ideas 'original ideas'? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the LACK of reliable sources, books etc. supporting the civic RIGHT interpretation. You yourself went looking for those reliable sources and came up empty handed, or have you forgotten that unwelcome fact already?141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The issue is the proportion of representation in reliable sourcing. I have shown seven reliable sources giving coverage to this 'civic right' hypothesis. You have shown no sourcing what-so-ever, other than your original research and your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing dos not include paid propaganda. All Saul Cornell material falls under that heading.

Re: Your claim to have provident seven reliable sources "giving coverage" means jack. Sources giving coverage is not the same as plain old "sources"141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'civic right.' There is no such thing as a 'second amendment right.' The right to keep and bear arms existed before, during and after the 2A was ratified. After attaining a certain age, anyone born in the U.S. may acquire a firearm, without permission from any government agency. This was true before and after the federal government was created, and it was true after the federal government began to infringe on the right. With exceptions of the mentally ill and convicted felons, every American has had the right, from 1776 to the present, whether or not s/he was a member of any militia, to possess and use arms. That is a fact that has no neutral position. This 2A article is about federal infringement, which does have pro, con and indifferent positions - not the right. (Truwik (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Under the America system of government the people have certain inalienable rights and that in order to form some sort of working government they give power to that government to infringe on those rights is certain specified manners. There is absolutely no record of the people giving ANY level of government the right to deprive them of their inalienable right to self defense using a gun, a knife, a rock, their firsts, a baseball bat, or any other tool which they find to do the job.141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While your personal beliefs are important, they are not relevant to discussion of the article. Please move discussion of your personal beliefs elsewhere. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal belief has the support of Supreme Court ruling and plainly language within numerous state Constitutions. Please move you objections to my beliefs elsewhere.141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More of Cornell that needs to be weeded out - Comment that CUIKSHANK made a collective rights interpretation

Since I can't seem to get enough interest in getting rid of all the Cornell references based on the fact that he is a biased "mouthpiece" in the pay of a gun control group I will go about it quote by quote.

Next on the list

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[87] made a collective right judicial interpretation modeled on Cruikshank.[88] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

Anyone reading Cruikshank will notice that Cruikshank DID NOT make a collective rights interpretation. Cornell's goal here seems to be to insinuate that the collective right theory existed much earlier then it in fact did.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank

1. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

The word "militia" does not appear at all in Cruikshank.

Unless someone can come up with a valid objection I will delete the bold portion above as inaccurate personal opinion.68.160.141.242 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell is a full professor at Ohio State-- he ran a center with Joyce Money that did not take a stand on the Second Amendment as either an individual or a collective right. His work was published by Oxford University Press and his articles have appeared in leading journals-- peer reviewed and law reviews. The suggestion that he is paid by the gun lobby is gun rights propaganda. OSU could never have taken money from a foundation with strings attached, a point I have made before. His work is generally regarded as the best and most

scholarly study of the Second Amendment--Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You already hacked one complain about Joyce, their bought and paid for Law Journals and the fact that Cornell participated as editor in one of those "Bought and Paid For" Journals. Your continuing hacks of he article don't help your cause any. As for his "knowledge" let me know when he figures out what "well regulated" means. BTW: Your arguments are continuing to be taken in bad faith. You are dead to me! Go away! 141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As the word militia does not appear at all in Cruikshank, it can without a single grain of doubt be determined that Cruikshank DID NOT made a collective right judicial interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms was applicable only within the context of a militia.

Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Find me a reference from a court or a scholar dated 100 years ago in support of your claim.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Meaning of English Declaration of Rights disputed by scholars and Heller The meaning of the English Declaration of Rights is a core example of how the same text has been read by different scholars in this debate to support both an individual right and a civic or collective right. If you compare the historians brief in Heller with Joyce Lee Malcolm's brief you can get a sense of the radically different interpretations. Can we start being a little honest and recognize that this issue is complex and that there are legitimate differences of opinion without once again turning to conspiracy theories about the Joyce FoundationPhilo-Centinel (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

interesting, but you've failed to provide any citations to back up your statements. claims in article space that "scholars continue to debate" beg for reliable sourcing. we get that you contend that they continue to debate the meaning. what's your reliable source that makes that same contention? it's bad practice to add prose to articles without sources. that failure is often overlooked on articles such as Honey or Power rangers; it's generally understood that on a deeply divisive issues such as the 2A, sourcing needs to be included for virtually every change made in article space. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Anastrophe here. About all that Philo-Centinel has established now is that his (hers?) opinion on this topic doesn't match Professor Cornell opinion. The distinction is that Professor Cornell's published opinions meets Wikipedia:Verifiabilty policy standards, and Phil-Centinel's opinions do not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see anyone addressing my complaint that Cornell's comment cannot be accurate. If Cruikshank does not make a militia based interpretation, then Salina cannot be modeled on it.141.154.12.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

I would have thought the reference to Heller would have been enough authority, but I am happy to oblige with additional sources. The limited view of the Declaration of Rights provision on arms may be found in Lois Schworer's essay in The Second Amendment in Law and History or David Konig's essay on the Transatlantic Context of the Second Amendment in Law and History Review. The gun rights view may be found in Joyce Malcolm's, To Keep and Bear ArmsPhilo-Centinel (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The question here is whether Cruikshank made a collective rights militia based interpretation on not. Cruikshank does no say it did ad Heller does not say it did. As for your other sources, please provide links. If those sources are not 100 years old then you are showing additional evidence of bad faith on top of the mountain you have already accumulated. I am waiting for you to back up your statement below.

Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years.

BTW: The Second Amendment in Law and History was edited by Carl Bogus, well known Joyce Foundation mouthpiece, while Konig's article does not mention Cruikshank. PLEASE try to say on topic. This is about whether Cruikshank made a "militia based" interpretation of the Second Amendment.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to wait for objection to removing obviously wrong material by paid "mouthpiece" Saul Cornell - see above for details141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Even more: Continuing to wait for objection to removing obviously wrong material by paid "mouthpiece" Saul Cornell - see above for details68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right of Revolt

Just giving warning that depending on how the issue over the "civic RIGHT" viewpoint goes I may attempt to add back the section on the Right to Revolt which was deleted about a month ago by a certain Yaf. Funny how his name keeps popping up.

I was not at all happy to see that section removed but I accepted the removal.

HOWEVER if people continue to insist that the Civic RIGHT viewpoint has enough of a following to be included in the article, then I will insist that the right to revolt be reinstated. The right to revolt has a substantially larger following then the civic RIGHT viewpoint.141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about popular constitutionalism or law? The right of revolt may have a following, particularly among those who read this essay, but can anyone find evidence that it is an accepted part of American law? Has the Supreme Court or any federal court endorsed it? The civic right or limited individual rights was defended by Stevens in Heller--which makes it important for readers to understand. Conlawgeek (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The right to revolt was secured in the Magna Carta, it was cited in the Declaration of Independance and is currently in Bill of Rights f the Constitution of New Hampshire, making it not only recognized law, but recognized CONSTITUTIONAL law

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

John Adams stated

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

From "The STATESMAN'S BOOK of JOHN OF SALISBURY"

http://www.constitution.org/salisbury/policrat456.htm

With these limitations, "it is as lawful to kill a tyrant as to kill a condemned enemy." All these passages merely go to show that tyrannicide is not unlawful, and not that it is a positive duty; indeed it is in connection with them that John expressed his opinion, already quoted, that usually the safest and most expedient method of destroying tyrants is for those who are oppressed to pray to God that their scourge may be removed; and he praises the forbearance of David, who "although he had to endure the most grievous tyrant, and although he often had an opportunity of destroying him, yet preferred to spare him, trusting to the mercy of God, within whose power it was to set him free without sin."253 Elsewhere, however, John represents tyrannicide as amounting to a public duty. "To kill a tyrant," he says, "is not merely lawful, but right and just. For whosoever takes up the sword deserves to perish by the sword. And he is understood to take up the sword who usurps it by his own temerity and who does not receive the power of using it from God. Therefore the law rightly takes arms against him who disarms the laws, and the public power rages in fury against him who strives to bring to nought the public force. And while there are many acts which amount to lèse majesté, none is a graver crime than that which is aimed against the body of Justice herself. Tyranny therefore is not merely a public crime, but, if there could be such a thing, a crime more than public. And if in the crime of lèse majesté all men are admitted to be prosecutors, how much more should this be true in the case of the crime of subverting the laws which should rule even over emperors? Truly no one will avenge a public enemy, but rather whoever does not seek to bring him to punishment commits an offence against himself and the whole body of the earthly commonwealth.

Samuel Adams stated

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God. Benjamin Franklin 141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I again advise other editors that their continuing insistence on including a miniscule minority viewpoint, will result in my attempting to add back into the article a section on the right to revolt and its relationship to the keeping and bearing of arms. I did not challenge the deletion of this section about a month ago by Yaf on grounds that it was a small viewpoint, but Yaf's (and other editors) continuing insistence on keeping a miniscule minority opinion (civic RIGHTS) in the article while at the same time keeping out a much larger viewpoint (right to revolt) can be considered nothing but "bad faith".141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The present content that is cited has nothing to do with the deleted earlier POV commentary content that was uncited. And, the claim that the civic duty/right is a minority viewpoint is entirely incorrect, because there are many that hold this viewpoint. Likewise, the claim that this viewpoint is "Brady campaign propaganda" is entirely incorrect, as there is no mention of any Brady Campaign connections. Taking the point of view that all interpretations other than an individual right interpretation is "Brady Campaign propaganda" is simply uncited paranoia. It has no place in this article. Interpretations that the Second Amendment includes a right to counter tyranny (some might call it a right to revolt) is entirely appropriate, provided that cites are included. POV commentary claiming a right to revolt, especially content that is uncited, however, will not likely stand in an article as controversial as this one. Cite it if you expect the content to remain. The objection to the content deleted earlier was primarily based on method, and lack of cites, not in the inherent message. Please consider getting a User account name, as the continuous changing of IP addresses is only confusing your contributions, and causing you more difficulty in getting your contributions included. Yaf (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki rules frown on unspecific words such as "many". Please advise how "many" is "many" by an actual numeric estimate and how you came to get that estimate. FYI: Many is usually considered by "many" to be more then 5 as in 1,2,3,4,5 "many"!

Under the US system of government there is no such beast as a civic "Right". All rights are individual. Your state Constitution will most likely confirm that. If it doesn't check some of the original Constitutions such as the ones for New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia and others.

The claim that it was Brady Campaign propaganda was a direct result of you quoting the President of the Brady Campaign. Are you now going to lie through your teeth and deny that you added a quote attributed to that president?

Funny how you now say that the right to revolt is now OK when a month ago you were the one that deleted it. What made you change your mind?

The right to revolt is probably the best cited section of the whole article. Currently it has 7 cites for 5 lines of text. It was as well cited when you deleted it a month ago. I believe a forked tongue is making an appearance.141.154.15.141 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"forked tongue"? Tone down your personal attacks please. They are counterproductive in discussions. Please read WP:Civility, and take this policy to heart. The collaborative editing of this article is much more difficult when interspersed with your invective. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So ho do I call someone a liar in wiki?68.163.98.56 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And I find it difficult to contribute my part as an editor with your continual threats and attempts to ban me.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia, especially in articles on contentious topics, can be stressful. So, you are not alone when you feel like calling someone a liar! The question to ask is: Does calling someone a liar help you with your cause? That depends on what you want out of this process, so only you can answer that question. Other Wikipedia editors have found that finding ways to get along with their "enemies" proves more successful in achieving their own goals. See for instance this essay: Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice your way seems to be to make threats.68.163.98.56 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Conlawgeek

If your "expertise" on the Second Amendment came for some professor in a college or university, you've been jipped and should ask for a refund.

If it came from reading law journals, you may have been duped by paid propaganda. A number of law journals have been hijacked by gun control advocacy groups such as the Joyce Foundation. 3 issues are listed in the following link. I am also sure that there are other issues not listed there

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:

• Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)
• Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004)
• Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This type of conspiracy theory is why nobody outside of the loony world of gun rights takes this entry seriously. Since you can't argue the facts you fall back on this absurd charge of conspiracy. As has been pointed out in this discussion, a university like Ohio State could not take money to advocate a political point of view. Student law reviews do not cede editorial control (Chicago Kent is the exception to this rule) Anyone with a high school education who read Cornell's work would see that it attacks the traditional collective rights theory funded by Joyce as much as it attacks the individual rights view. The Levinson review of Cornell's book in Reviews in American History makes this point very clearly. The simple fact is that many of the scholars on the individual rights side of the debate have also taken money from conservative foundations-- including the NRA. I fear that this essay will never be anything but a gun rights echo. I am not going to devote any more energy to trying to keep this balanced. It never will be NPOV and only shows once again how the whole wiki idea is naive in the extreme. This entry is dominated by gun rights advocates who clearly will not brook any honest discussion of the facts and spend a scary amount of time on this site!

My simple effort to show how much more complex the English history of this right was resulted in a dogmatic ideological response. The fact that by the period after the American Revolution English Courts had expanded the right does not tell us how the right was understood a century before. The narrowing of affray after the Revolution does not tell us what it meant in 17th century England- -it does tell us that the crime continued to exist in modified form after the Revolution. Tucker's own comments that the English Declaration of rights provided almost no protection for the right to arms is simply cast aside by references from English cases no longer binding on America after the Revolution. The point is that Tucker did not believe the pre-existing right was very robust. The lapses in logic in these responses are truly shocking.

So long Conlawgeek (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am continually disturbed by the phrase "the traditional collective rights theory". Traditional implies the oldest and as any student of history can find out, the "individual rights view of the Second Amendment" is the "traditioal" view. The collective view is a johny come lately view that showed up 100 year after the Revolution and did not gain much popularity until the 20th Century. I consider this term nothing but a blatant attempt to rewrite history to support a discredited ( as of Heller) view of the Second Amendment and what it protects.141.154.15.141 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

issuing a string of ad hominems and slights while exiting the room is an age-old, and not particularly noble, technique. no mention of the 'loony world of gun control', so i guess we can infer your stance from that. one would expect that a self proclaimed 'conlawgeek' would be interested in actually contributing to the encyclopedia; with a grand total of four edits in wikipedia article space, all on only this article, it rather suggests a single purpose account, and certainly not a consitutional law geek. oh well. thanks for playing on wikipedia for a week then bailing with a 'you all suck' postscript. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Conlawgeek makes some excellent points about specific problems with the article. Most notably the problem with gun rights advocacy bringing a systemic bias into the article, "consensus" of a group of editors that tend to advocate one way in favor of their adversarial view of the world does not equal the policy: "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Instead the article represents point of view in proportion to the prominence of the advocacy of the editors attracted to edit this article. That is a systemic bias flaw of the Wikipedia model where it is exceedingly difficult for editors to separate their personal view from the view found in the balance of reliable sourcing. A systemic flaw that cannot be easily fixed. Next, I expect to be subject to personal attack by well known advocacy editors here. Oh well, this gets circular. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

there is as much evidence for system bias in favor of gun rights as there is evidence in favor of gun control. which is to say, none at all. the systemic bias claim lacks any objective metric; it is lacking in any probative value - it is merely one editor's opinion stated as fact. can you explain why editors who are strongly in favor of gun control would not also be similarly 'attracted' to this and other articles pertaining to guns, violence, crime, etc? are you suggesting that those in favor of gun control aren't as strongly invested in their viewpoint as those in favor of gun rights? why would that be? there are many very prominent gun control advocates - in fact, gun control advocates have long been given great emphasis and coverage in popular media, so it's hardly as if there are no people out there who care about gun control. what would be the explanation for this - stated in objectively identifiable metrics? hopefully i have avoided any personal attacks. if i may point out as well, i have made numerous edits and reversions on this and other articles in service of NPOV. i have supported addition of properly sourced 'gun control' content (it's a misnomer, but it'll do for purposes of this discussion), and have reverted blatantly POV additions or removals disparaging the 'gun control' POV. am i guilty of systemic bias? i would note also your recent addition to Right to keep and bear arms that was one-sided in favor of 'gun control' content, which is contrary to NPOV. (it has since been adjusted for more neutral content, i'll acknowledge). is this evidence of your 'systemic bias'?Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A strict interpretation of your request would result in the deletion of ALL collective rights arguments in the article except those appearing in case law. As of the Heller ruling, the collectivist view has been discredited and has no force in law and therefore zero persuasive power.

An alternate way of determining popularity by Google search of the terms "Second Amendment" and "individual right" as compared to "collective right" The "individual right" combo has over 90,000 hits while "collective right" combo has under 20,000 hits. In the current article, there are 31 instances of the words individual, individuals, and individually, while the words collective, collectively has 10 instances. By this measure the collective right interpretation is currently overrepresented and should be reduced.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Second+Amendment%22++%22individual+right%22&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Second+Amendment%22+%22collective+right%22&btnG=Search141.154.15.141 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

google searches are not admissible as a measure of 'popularity'. this has been covered countless times on wikipedia. there is simply no value at all to such hit counts. none. it's pointless to even mention them, since they have no probative value. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see one such discussion of Google searches on this page and I have been here almost a year. When and where was this issue covered and do wiki rules bar Google searches for checking popularity? Please cite the rule where this method is barred. Alternately show a rule discussion where this has been addressed by wiki administrators, not editors.141.154.15.141 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's review the facts. In Heller Scalia and Stevens each make arguments based on English history. Yet, every time somebody suggests that this essay ought to include both of those interpretations of the evidence, one side is reverted out of existence. Then to further intimidate debate we have a sock puppet investigation. Well I can't imagine why conlaw geek is bailing--Philo-Centinel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

You seem not to have read the Stevens dissent. Stevens states right at the front that the right is an individual right. Per his intro his dissent against the decision in not about whether it is a collective right or an individual right. His dissent is about the scope of the right.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that Stevens and Scalia don't agree on the English history. The fact that Stevens cast the right as a limited individual right is not on point. Things always drift away from the focus and are pulled back to the ideological debate over gun control. I suspect this is why we can never make any real progress. I fear this does tend to prove that a wiki is not a good way to deal with a controversial ideological issue such as this one. Sad really.Philo-Centinel (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't quite get the fact that disarming the population through game laws, the cite you and Conlawgeek wanted inserted, resulted in the king who practiced those policies to be run out of town for practicing tyrannical policies against the population. Are you an advocate of tyranny?141.154.15.141 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny I thought we were trying to write an article about the Second Amendment so that people could understand how the debate has evolved and how the Supreme Court divided 5 to 4 on its meaning. Obviously, this is not what some people are interested in doing- they wish to debate gun control and gun rightsPhilo-Centinel (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite sure that is NOT what you think. If you had thought that you would not have attempted to rewrite history. and you're wrong about what we wish. We don't wish to debate anything. We wish that SOME people who STOP act like domestic enemies of the US Constitution and leave us and our rights ALONE!141.154.15.141 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is actually some excellent work on why gun rights people are much more likely to dominate a forum like this and why most gun control people are likely to be off doing almost anything else. I suggest you all look at the work of Dan Kahan at Yale Law School on the cultural foundation for the modern gun control debate-- so to answer Anastrophe -- yes there is a fairly well established sociological consensus on this point. Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with that fact that quite a few of people have become disgusted with the way politicians are abusing the power and trust placed in their hands? 141.154.15.141 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another topical book discussing the selection bias of public interest in this topic, relative to propensity towards taking action, is the book "Disarmed" by Kristin Gross, 2006 Princeton University Press, ref ISBN 9780691124247 SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to find out that DC never had a ban on guns. Shocked I tell you! How could Heller have taken advantage of those old senile fools at the Supreme Court by bringing a case before them against laws that do not exist. SIMPLY SHOCKING! (This is sarcasm people)

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8328.html

Readers interested in social movements and social movement theory will find an interesting case study of a movement that never happened--efforts to strengthen gun control laws in the United States.

Meanwhile over on Amazon a reader sneering at the book comments that US gun control laws are patterned after NAZI laws of the 1930's. OOOPSS! Better not let THAT fact come to light. Brings back memories of the whole Fatherland/Homeland Patriot Act scam.

http://www.amazon.com/Disarmed-Movement-Princeton-American-Politics/dp/0691124248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1237783313&sr=1-1

The flaw, or Big Lie, is its unproven assertion that Gun Prohibition is a good thing; no proof in this book. The 1968 Gun Control Act was followed by increased rates of violent deaths (Figure 2.1, page 41). After it was passed the legal technician who wrote this law admitted that whole sections were taken from the 1930s Nazi Gun Control law. This Nazi law was followed by the worst political oppression and highest rates of violence in 20th century Europe. School shootings were unknown before the 1968 Gun Control Act but became a reality with the next generation. Localities with Gun Prohibition have the highest rates of violent death (Washington D.C.) while rural areas with widespread gun ownership have the lowest rates of crime. It all relates to economics and the absence of political oppression. The oppressed suffer from low wages, high taxes, and the poverty that causes crime and "senseless violence" (when somebody snaps). Areas with high gun ownership generally have more owner-operated businesses and a more egalitarian atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Trial of the Wards (1854)

Yaf: Which former U.S. Atty. Gen. expressed an opinion about Bliss that related to the 2A? Please quote what he said. Thank you. Yaf's statement: "the early 19th Century interpretation was that any infringing...was prohibited by the Second Amendment...thereby precluding any regulations...by state law," is incorrect. Show us a state law that cites the 2A as authority for it, or a state legislative record where the 2A was considered when enacting a state firearms law. Or a state or federal court decision where a state law was determined to have violated the 2A. If no editor can produce such evidence, all state court cases must be removed from this article.

Ward was not about the 2A, it was about whether the Ward brothers had violated a state law, or acted in self-defense, in the shooting-death of Mr. Butler. (Truwik (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Have to disagree with the total removal of "all" state court cases. Many of them, such as Nunn, do in fact rule on the right to "keep and bear arms". Ward and at least one other, do not, and need to removed.141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I meant all state cases that made no mention at all of the 2A, such as Bliss, Buzzard and Ward. I actually added this topic this morning, the talk-page topic list didn't have the first Ward entry. Now its back, if you would like to delete this and keep all this together that would be fine. My opening statement here is at that topic now. (Truwik (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

The former U.S. Atty. General was John J. Crittenden of Kentucky. He was lead counsel on Ward's defense team. As for an example, the Kentucky state law on trial with Bliss was viewed by some as having violated the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Crittenden's defense in Ward simply built on the defense first advanced in Bliss, coming along a few years later. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If he had something to say regarding the intent or purpose of the Second Amendment then that comment may have a place in the article. However that place s not under case law, or judicial interpretation or whatever you next decide to change the title to in order to bolster your position. Judicial interpretation is by definition interpretation by the judge. An attorney general in not a judge and further is not even a member of the Judicial Branch. Please now tell us what that something is, that he said, that is so important, that it merits a place in the article.141.154.12.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Yaf, if John Crittenden said something at the Ward trial, that related to the 2A, then quote him and cite the source for that info. Citing Bliss as an example of how 'some' viewed another Kentucky law as violative of the 2A, is, at best, hearsay. And with no one at the Bliss trial mentiioning the 2A, either, it's hearsay twice-removed. If Bliss was so 'viewed-by-some', then name and quote them, and cite a source. (Truwik (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

I just removed 'Ward'. (Truwik (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Serious issues in the "civilian usage meaning" section

The following appears in the current article under civilian usage

Likewise, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed

For some strange reason I find myself not convinced that bearing arms in defense of my State or of the United States is a non-military usage of arms. Call me crazy for thinking that shooting at a foreign invading army is a military usage of arms.141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While there are 'serious issues' within the states over the scope of the right, that doesn't affect the meaning of, or the purpose for, the Second Amendment. For instance, in Bliss and Buzzard two states had laws which prohibited 'concealed carry' but when those laws were challenged, Kentucky voided its law, as being violative of the right, while Arkansas held, its law did not violate the right. (Kentucky then altered its constitution to limit concealed carry.) Massachusetts had a law which mandated a one-year jail-term for mere possession of a handgun within the state, while Vermont had no restrictive gun laws at all. However, none of these state variations of the scope of the right, affected the purpose for the 2A. That is, no state has ever suggested updating the amendment's words 'keep and bear arms' to better reflect the latest changes within state law.

If there is a serious issue in this 2A article, it is over, to whom 'shall not be infringed' applies and what constitutes infringement. If one views the amendment as a 'right' he would then assume that everything affecting that right likewise affects the amendment's meaning. Yet 'shall not be infringed' seems to negate that. How can there be 50 different versions, of what the right consists, if the supreme law of the land mandates that the right shall not be infringed? This seeming dichotomy has a simple answer, which is hard for some to accept. The Second Amendment is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' that applies exclusively to the federal government. Those editors who favor evermore federal infringement, would probably never accede to that - even though it is a historical fact, which every U.S. Supreme Court decision, that has addressed it, has upheld. (Truwik (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that that is also a serious issue and if you will check the record you will find that I did attempt to change the intro to include the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits "infringement by Congress". However calling shooting at an invading army, a civilian usage of arms is totally ridiculous.141.154.15.141 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, calling defense of a state or country 'non-military' is silly. When states called up their militia for intrastate police duty, individuals arrived toting their own rifles. Most states required their men to equip themselves with a trusty rifle for such duty. (Truwik (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Adding to obscure arguments and references - here is my contribution - Gun control prohibited by "Bill of Attainder" prohibition

Don't worry I won't try to get it into the article

Lets start with some givens

People have inalienable rights

One of those rights is the right to life

A subsidiary right to the right to life, is the right to DEFEND that life

Depriving someone of one or more of his rights is a punishment

From Brown v US on what a Bil of Attainder is

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. @ 71 U. S. 447-449.

From the New Hampshire Constitution on when rights can be deprived

[Art.] 15. [Right of Accused.] No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. Every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense, by himself, and counsel. No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land; provided that, in any proceeding to commit a person acquitted of a criminal charge by reason of insanity, due process shall require that clear and convincing evidence that the person is potentially dangerous to himself or to others and that the person suffers from a mental disorder must be established. Every person held to answer in any crime or offense punishable by deprivation of liberty shall have the right to counsel at the expense of the state if need is shown; this right he is at liberty to waive, but only after the matter has been thoroughly explained by the court.

The Bill of attainder prohibition prohibits punishment except through a court of law. Poof! Any law passed depriving a person of his rights is illegal! That includes all laws depriving a person of the means to defend his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the case was U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), and the "@ 71" should be "381" (both quotes were from Brown). Bills of Attainder are acts of legislatures that pronounce a person guilty (usually of treason) without a trial, and sentence that person to death and confiscate all of his property. A law which deprives a person of a right is unconstitutional, unless it was done by due process of law such as convicting one of a felony. Nice try though. (Truwik (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

You may be getting confused between the old definition of a bill of attainder and the newer (200 years old now) which includes a ruling that "bills of pains and penalties" are also bills of attainder under US law. Bills of attainder are legislative acts that "punish" without recourse to a trial by the Judicial Branch. They are not limited to acts against a single person and includes acts against groups of people. The whole US population, for instance is a group, so are all blacks, all whites, all Asians, all people earning below or above a certain amount, all people under 5 feet tall, all people over 65, all people under 18, etc etc etc. The key concept is punishment through an act of the legislature, without recourse to a trial. While the legislature can certainly pass laws, that upon a determination of guilt in a court of law, can result in punishment, it is the job of the Judicial Branch to determine that guilt and the actual punishment for that guilt. Any punishment by the legislature constitutes a breach of separation of powers. Deprivation of a right, including the right to keep and bear arms, by an act of legislature, is in fact a punishment. The death penalty is a derivation of the right to life, incarceration is a deprivation the right to be free, and fines are a deprivation of the right to property.

From Brown

http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/437/case.html

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. @ 71 U. S. 447-449.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of § 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, which it sought to distinguish from § 9(h), as being in that category.

It is in this spirit that the Bill of Attainder Clause was consistently interpreted by this Court -- until the decision in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, which we shall consider hereafter. In 1810, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in 10 U. S. 138, stated that "[a] bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both." This means, of course, that what were known at common law as bills of pains and penalties are outlawed by the Bill of Attainder Clause. The Court's pronouncement therefore served notice that the Bill of Attainder Clause was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now from CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 71 U. S. 277 (1867)

First and foremost, deprivation of a right is "punishment"

2. Deprivation or suspension of any civil rights for past conduct is punishment for such conduct.

3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.

4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right to revolt suffers from OR and POV problems

The whole new section "Right to Revolt" is sourced entirely to original documents using improper WP:SYN. Also, the concept of a right to oppose tyrannical government is one viewpoint, it is also found to be dubious in reliable sourcing and the article should not present the concept as "one point of view" only. Presently the wording pushes the point of view as fact. The mainstream point of view is that the 2A is (and has long been) subject to governmental regulation, and not for service of revolutionaries. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing! I read the Second Amendment as BARRING federal regulation. That there preamble thingie to the Bill of Rights agrees with me.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which part of the Second Amendment is subject to regulation? and I am most interested in learning what those regulations prohibit the Second Amendment from doing?141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed. the first claim "a topic central" - is sourced to an original document that does not in and of itself establish that it is central, only that it was central. only the final three sentences of the section are directly related to the 2A, and even the last only indirectly. the discussion of right of revolt going back to the magna carta may be appropriate to the earlier portions of the 'background' section. that said, that the mainstream view is that the 2A is subject to governmental regulation (as are all rights, in the sense that they confer only upon law abiding, mentally sound, adults) doesn't detract from the fact that the right of revolt was an important concept to the founders, and that they saw disarmament of the people to be a step towards tyranny. and that this was discussed during the debates on the BoR, thus it is relevant to an understanding of the foundation of the 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which part of the Second Amendment is subject to regulation? and I am most interested in learning what those regulations prohibit the Second Amendment from doing?

BTW:Your opinion about right being "conferred" is a bunch of "soft brown stuff". Rights are not "conferred" upon law abiding, mentally sound, adults, they are inherent in each and every individual and moreover those individuals can only be deprived of their rights through a court of law. Look up the word "inalienable".141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

David C. Williams, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 9780300095623 (see chapter 4 especially pg 146[2]), argues that the right of revolution is not founded or protected by the Second Amendment, but rather that it is an entirely separate natural right. The article section advanced by anonIP editor and his WP:SYN reading of original documents seems far off base from mainstream scholarly interpretation of the 2A and should be deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Call up William and have him read the New Hampshire Bill of Rights. The right listed as the "Right to Revolt" might set him straight.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to keep a reference to the belief held by some that the Second Amendment is related to a right of revolution, while removing any OR in that section? SMP0328. (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You people set the standard of what constitutes an acceptable minority opinion in the article. I'm sure that just the total of the signers of the Declaration of Independence vastly outnumbers the followers of the civic "right" viewpoint. You made your bed. Now have the decency to sleep in it.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. A reliable tertiary sources can easily found describing that minority opinion, see for instance DJ Mulloy, Routledge, ISBN 9780415326742, see pg 86[3] and page 124[4], etc.. I acknowledge that the 'right of revolution' aka 'right of insurrection' is a key opinion in the later half of the Twentieth Century, espoused especially by the radical modern militia movement and their sympathizers. Mostly I object to AnonIP's sourcing by use of improper synthesis of original documents, and the presentation wording as if it was 'fact'. This is at best a significant fringe opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the material, take it up with the wiki article on that same subject. To repeat: most of the material comes from there.141.154.15.141 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Against policy. Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources. See Wikipedia:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror Wikipedia. This is a recurring problem. Please cite your sources, avoiding synthesis and please use good quality tertiary sources. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Really???? Nice to hear. It's a good thing I use the same original sources that are used in that article then. and can I use secondary sources? I heard tell that wiki likes those more then tertiary sources.141.154.15.141 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Right to Revolt section should be removed. I fail to see how 'gun control laws' and the right to 'rebel' are in 'conflict.' Like Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" (March 23,1775), they go hand in glove. However, that is not 'central' to the 2A. Nor is what state constitutions say about rebellion pertinent. Congressmen are bound by oath 'to support this Constitution' and since they have knowingly contrived to use a delegated power (taxation & interstate commerce) to exercise a denied power (the 2A), they have intentionally violated their oath of office, and should lawfully be removed from same. And while Amerians have become accustomed to federal regulation, that doesn't justify it. It just means a corrupt Supreme Court let them get away with it, for 75 years (1934-2008). (FDR threatened to pack the Court with 4 more justices, if they didn't stop declaring his socialist programs unconstitutional, and one caved in.) Now, since Heller, it's 5-4 the other way. Since that Court shot down the D.C. ordinance that infringed, they would likely hold federal laws that infringed also in violation of the 2A. (Truwik (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree. The Right to Revolt section has major problems with WP:SYN. It should be removed. (A new section, on a right to oppose tyranny, with article text directly related to the 2A and properly cited with reliable sources, would be entirely appropriate.) Yaf (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't rebel very well if the government disarms the populace, can we?

If you have a problem over WP:SYN take it take up with the main wiki article on the subject. If you can convince them to change the main article I will offer no objections to a corresponding change in the small summary of the topic. Did I mention something about making your bed, and then having the decency to sleep in it? 141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Have removed content with a problem with synthesis, and retitled section. This should address the problems discussed and identified in the discussions above. Yaf (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother checking with the article on the right to revolt first to see what they they think of your SYN issues, and to get their opinion or is this one of those things that you know from nothing?68.163.98.56 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would remind all, that the 2A Article is not about the 'right' to have arms (or how one could rebel or revolt without them). Nor is it about state-law treatment of the right, or how the right evolved-in and/or-from other nations. It's about a specific restriction the Founders placed upon the federal government. If federal infringement isn't curtailed, then would be the proper time to discuss the right to revolt - and openly, of course, so they will know exactly what you are up to. (Truwik (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

And I agree that the intro should be changed to reflect that fact. Now why don't you take some action instead of just talking about it.68.163.98.56 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

this article most certainly is about the right to keep and bear arms, among other things. by truwik's measure, the entire article should be scrubbed, and replaced with "the 2A restricts the federal government's power to infringe a right which we won't mention". the historical background of the 2A, the ideological underpinnings of it, etc, are all absolutely relevant to an understanding of it. that's why the articles on the other amendments discuss their history, the reason the federalists codified them, etc.. The intro to the article is extremely bare for a reason - because partisans on both sides love to trickle-in POV commentary. a lede that summarizes the article has proven essentially insurmountable, thus, the existing extremely terse opening. i can live with that, since - at the 30,000ft level - it actually is a reasonably accurate summary. Anastrophe (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I find editors removing phrases like "the second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms" to be nothing other the censorship. That phrase apears in numerous court cases. Cruikshank for instance

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance of fascist right and socialist left combine to exclude libertarian fringe

Couldn't resist the title!

Yaf and SaltyBoatr, within half an hour of each other went to get this article protected from anonIP editors.

I would say I wonder why, but I already know!

Just look at Yaf's butchery of the right to revolt addition, conveniently made when I can't respond.

My guess is SaltyBoatr will now follow up with a complete deletion.68.163.98.56 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

and the edit were made without an attempt to reach consensus. Some people, the fascist right and socialist left, naturally feel that they have more rights then the rest of us. They being our "betters" and all, and thus having the natural right to lead the unwashed masses.

Compare swift action to get rid of right to revolt section against the SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW going in getting rid of garbage like Ward. Must be because Yaf wants it in and he has a few more votes the the rest of us combined.68.163.98.56 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed this section's title from Unholy Alliance of fascist right and socialist left combine to exclude libertarian fringe to simply Yaf-SaltyBoatr Alliance. Let's try to keep this civil. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back! Now for the second time Please leave it alone.68.163.98.56 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Spooner?

Lysander Spooner is hardly a well known expert on the Second Amendment, and really doesn't deserve coverage in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention something about, after Yaf butchers the entry, Salty Boatr will finish the job by killing it? Why, I do believe I did.

As to how well known he is, Spooner got a mention in Heller on the WINNING side. Your pal Cornell didn't.

From Heller

Antislavery advocates routinely invoked the right to bear arms for self-defense. Joel Tiffany, for example, citing Blackstone’s description of the right, wrote that “the right to keep and bear arms, also implies the right to use them if necessary in self defence; without this right to use the guaranty would have hardly been worth the paper it consumed.” A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117–118 (1849); see also L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 116 (1845) (right enables “personal defence”).

By that yardstick Spooner deserves at OVER 7 references. The amount currently had by Joyce paid mouthpiece Cornell.68.163.98.56 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner, an Antebellum era anarchist, had a public opinion about a 'right of revolution' which drew upon the Second Amendment to make his argument. The thoughts of an anarchist from 150 years ago do not likely match the present day mainstream point of view on the "insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment" found in the bulk of reliable sourcing. See[5] and [6]. The clear pattern in the reliable sourcing points to advocacy work surrounding the modern militia movement in the middle of the 1990s, see especially the 1995 paper by Colonel Dunlap which drew scholarly attention. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

keep in mind - not that i'm explicitly defending inclusion of spooner - that spooner is presented within the "background" section of the article, thus 'present day mainstream point of view' is inapplicable. Anastrophe (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Insurection Theory" is how our pals over at the Joyce Institute call it in an attempt to minimize it. and I don't like you trying to denigrate Spooner by calling him an anarchist. How about you call what he is, famed abolitionist and freedom fighter, and one of the top legal writers of his age.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org

This web site explores the life, history, scholarship, and influence of Lysander Spooner: one of the most provocative, eclectic and prolific American legal writers of the Nineteenth Century.

Even those pro-salvery conceded his legal arguments were strong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

Even Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi, a slavery proponent, praised the argument's intellectual rigor and conceded it was the most formidable legal challenge he had seen from the abolitionists to date. In 1858, Spooner circulated a "Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,"68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Milnivlek

RE:Your complaint on unsourced/unsupported opinion - as follows

In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.[citation needed] If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.[citation needed]

I agree that the above needs referencing and that some sort of reasonable time period should be set for anyone wanting that material in the article to find sourcing. I believe that either 1 or 2 weeks should be sufficient time for anyone wanting to keep the material to find some sort of backup. If nobody bothers to get sourcing by the end of that time period the material should be deleted as nobody finds it worth defending.

Do you vote for a 1 week, 2 week period or would you prefer another reasonable time frame?68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

the 'time period' isn't subject to vote. formal fact tags are dated, eg {{Fact|date=March 2009}} (which i've done for the fact tags in question, which were added today). there's a reason the resolution is only the month - editors need to be provided time to find cites when something has been challenged. a month is usually considered the bare minimum, unless the material is exceedingly controversial. on the other hand, after two or three months, i strongly support scrubbing unsourced, challenged material. there's a real problem on wikipedia of unsourced, challenged material lingering interminably. i routinely scrub challenged material that's a year old, two years old. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The material in question, is at best tangential to the Second Amendment. Who really cares how much research and how many papers were written on it?68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

shift in scholarly opinion is certainly directly relevant.Anastrophe (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me know how many other wiki articles on Constitutional Amendments consider shifts in scholarly opinion worth of inclusion. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

that's your argument? why not just use the third amendment as an argument that all the amendment articles should be about five brief paragraphs long? what other articles contain, is not a measure against which changes to the article under discussion can be made. that's per wikipedia policy, i should add.Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We can cut it down to the wording from Cruikshank

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

Toss is a quote or two from Heller that it protects an individual right and be done with it.68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we decide going for two quotes one has to be from the dissent where the dissenters ALSO sate that 2A protects an individual right. The dissenters opposition in about the extent of that right.

From the Stevens dissent

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." What are you reading that says this? We can get farther here finding consensus if we stick to ideas founded in reliable sourcing. I am not saying that your claim is false, I am just saying that you have shown no basis in mainstream reliable sourcing. Neither am I asking you to explain your reasoning, so please don't waste talk page space on that. I am asking for you to point to independent sourcing that corroborates your conclusion. What books are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am getting straight off of the Stevens dissent. Is that reliable enough for you? Click on the link above and it should be easy to find. It is after all the FIRST paragraph.68.163.98.56 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Direct reading of court documents requires an editor's personal interpretation, analysis and synthesis. I am looking for reliable secondary or tertiary sourcing. See WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really! You don't think the the US Supreme Court is a reliable source of its own opinion?68.163.98.56 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I think that the court documents of the Supreme Court are primary sources as to the Supreme Court rulings. And, use of primary sources is severely limited per WP:Policy. And, no matter, if the point you are trying to make exists in the mainstream, it should be easy to find reliable secondary or tertiary sourcing that says the exact same thing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job of "if you can't win, confuse the issue" but I'm not biting. Have you been able to click on the link provided and confirm that the dissenting opinion states

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.68.163.98.56 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have read the Heller decision, including the dissent. Largely irrelevant anyway, because interpretation, analysis and synthesis of primary sources is against policy here. Non-negotiable. Read WP:NOR. This is a pointless conversation because anything found in the primary document, if worthwhile, can also be found in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Start looking. Quit wasting talk page space. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the dissent state

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: You seem to be a bit confused as to what the subject is. The subject is the Second Amendment. Supreme Court commentary and interpretation f teh Second Amendment is a secondary source on that subject. Wiki LOVES secondary sources. They are preferred over all others.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick Heller applied for a registration certificate for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed a lawsuit in the federal district court seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city's ban on handguns violated that right, and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for Heller. The Supreme Court said: We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

SaltyBoatr is right, how could anyone understand that? We do have a clue though, Heller is described as a 'landmark' decision, wherein (for the first time in its history) the U.S. Supreme Court held a law violative of the Second Amendment. And at page 53, opinion, it said: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It's a mystery, but maybe if we all got our heads together... (Truwik (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Issues with recent citation by SaltyBoatr

In response to a complaint by Milnivlek over uncited material SaltyBoatr made the following cite referencing CHAPTER 5 PAGE 104

In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.

That is a problem as this book has no chapters and the reference to the nonexistent Chapter 5 needs to go. The book is a compilation of articles by various authors.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YBKAvosk_lcC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=David+J.+Bodenhamer+reversing+the+revolution&source=bl&ots=Gv0kLofKVo&sig=w33_6nr-VUhqaq2-lzUWxOtPt_A&hl=en&ei=I07JSYXaO5yNtgfPjvGgAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA113,M1

Actual text from page 104 reads

Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.

This is substantially different from what is currently in the article which currently belittles pro gun right authors. The article needs to be changed to get rid of the bias of whoever added that section and to better reflect the actual page 104 statement.

To SaltyBoatrs credit he did remove the hazy statement

If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I decided to check who added the material needing citation and I found out it was none other then Philo-Centinel, who until my recent attempt to get rid of an itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny minority opinion probably has had more items reverted, then the combined total of all other authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270330711&oldid=27032993668.163.98.56 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Still need a fix here

The following, which is what is currently in the article

Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate.

bears minimal relation to this,which is is a direct quote from the book.

Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.

and this, while probably true, should probably be deleted as excess flab.

By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.

and again there is NO Chapter 5. The book does NOT HAVE CHAPTERS. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 5 starts on page 88. See here[7] for a Google book view of the first page of the chapter. There are variations in the way to format book citations, see[8], would you prefer Ely listed second? Sorry, you are really off base. There is plenty of reliable sourcing describing the emphasis on new scholarly work focusing anew on the 'individual rights' view after the 1989 Sanford Levinson Yale Law Review article which served as a watershed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The book is a compilation of articles, it does not have chapters. Is there some kind of problem with just stating page 104 as the source????68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains, Heller held the 2A restriction applies to individual-type weapons, as well as military-type weapons. The Article should reflect how it is, not how others agree or disagree over it, unless, of course, one wants to start a civil war. (Truwik (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Proposing new lede

There is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the current lede and I am proposing that it be replaced with the following

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress

This to be cited by a reference to the following quote from Cruikshank

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Next it should be followed up by the following to indicate the extent of the right - per Sayoko Blodgett-Ford the following quote was made in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention - see current cite 31

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Next from the Stevens dissent on Heller showing tat even the dissenters consider it an individual right

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Next from the majority opinion on what the Supreme Court thinks about the "collective rights" view that the right can only be exercised within a militia

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks like improper synthesis where you are attempting to interpret selective quotations from primary court documents in order to advance your personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Court documents are secondary sources when the subject is the Second Amendment.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, your selective quotations from them appears as improper synthesis in attempt to advocate your personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What am I synthesizing?68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me. Your hypothesis seems kind of muddy, but it appears that you are trying to rewrite the lede to be sympathetic with the gun rights advocacy slogan: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You complained I was synthesizing, so what do you think I'm synthesizing? or don't YOU know what YOUR complaint was about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it appears that you are using original research through synthesis of selective quotations from court documents trying to rewrite the lede to be sympathetic with the gun rights advocacy slogan: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?". Also an apparent violation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting court cases is not original research, and the fact that you don't like what the judges say doesn't make it synthesis. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the meaning of what they say takes expertise, which normal people don't have. For instance, with Heller, it appeared to laymen reading the ruling that gun ban laws would be found unconstitutional. Yet, in the eight months since and with eighty court cases heard, all, or nearly all gun bans remain constitutional. See [this newspaper article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html]. That is why it is risky to base the article on your selective quotations from primary court documents, proof in the time tested, they don't actually mean what they literally say. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are normal and can't quite grasp what the courts are saying. Never fear however, I do understand and I guess that makes me exceptional :-) and how do you know I haven't been working in, say contract law, for the past decade? The only reasons those bans are still in place is that it can take a decade to get a case heard. I think they are working on the Exxon Valdez lawsuit. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"the only reason those bans are still in place..."??? That sounds like a wishful rationalization without any basis other that your intense imagination. Did you read the article[9]? About eighty federal court cases challenging gun bans on Second Amendment grounds have been heard in the eight months since Heller and in every case the ban was upheld as being constitutional under the Second Amendment. How does "shall not infringe" comport with eighty court cases validating constitutional gun ban rulings? Clearly there is more going on here than the dictionary definition, or the gun rights slogan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what,list those 80 cases and I MIGHT believe you. 141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

the only person suggesting dissatisfaction with the current lede is the person proposing changing it. that's a misrepresentation of consensus. i'm not in love with the current lede, but considering the prickly-spiny nature of this particular amendment and the strong feelings that swirl around it, the existing lede appears to be a reasonable - if imperfect - compromise. ideally the lede should be a summary of the entire article, but that has proven impractical due to intensive POV pushing by both 'sides' of the debate. the existing terse lede gives a 30,000ft view that is accurate within that constraint. it's also been essentially unchallenged for several months, no small feat in and of itself. so, to summarize:

Do not support. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Truwic has also expressed dissatisfaction over the fact that the word "infringed" is not the lede, and stated that the lack constitutes "censorship". Your opinion that is has not been "unchallenged" is just that, your opinion. The facts show otherwise. I can agree that it has not been "strongly challenged" in that past, but as of now, even that is not true.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Infringed" in context of the Second Amendment is a very subtle word easily misinterpreted and manipulated for political reasons. The dictionary definition means one thing where the use in context of the reasonable regulation status quo of the Second Amendment appears quite different. It appears that you are advocating for the fringe gun advocacy position "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?", and that is inappropriate in this encyclopedia article. See the recent book by Brian Doherty ISBN 9781933995250 page xvi who touches on this concept[10]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree! But I wouldn't add Justice Stevens' dissent. (Truwik (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Infringed is a word whose meaning you can look up in any dictionary.

in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

infringe

to break (a law etc) or interfere with (a person's freedom or rights). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Truwik votes for Change! (Just not Obama type change) but votes against adding in the quote from the dissenting opinion

The following now has two votes for and two against (Hopefully I won't get egg on my face by assuming that "I agree" means I agree to change the lede)

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress

This to be cited by a reference to the following quote from Cruikshank

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Next it should be followed up by the following to indicate the extent of the right - per Sayoko Blodgett-Ford the following quote was made in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention - see current cite 31

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Next from the majority opinion on what the Supreme Court thinks about the "collective rights" view that the right can only be exercised within a militia

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept. In the Cruikshank quote, between 'counts' and 'are', I would add "[in the indictment]" (just to clarify the source of the counts). Noah Webster (1758-1843) was 33 years old when the 2A was added to the U.S. Constitution. He defined 'infringement' as: "an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege." (Truwik (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

No additional votes have been submitted to break the tie, and while I believe we should wait a bit longer for votes, it is not too early to seek a compromise on the change.

Since there are 4 sections proposed to be in the new lede, with two vote for and two vote against, one way to make sure all parties are equally dissatisfied (a sure indicator of a good compromise)is to have those who voted against select the two most distasteful of the 4 proposed changes which will not be included in the lede, leaving the two most noncontroversial changes as the new lede.

Now asking Truwik, Anastrophe, and SaltyBoatr to vote either for or against this method of reaching a mutually disatisfactory compromise. If for, Anastrophe, and SaltyBoatr should indicate which of the 4 proposed section is most distasteful, and to further indicate if they are for inclusion, anti inclusion or neutral on inclusion, for the other two sections.141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

false construct. consensus is not found via a vote. this ia wikipedia policy. i have stated that i am against any changes to the existing lede - a lede that was also formulated through consensus - therefore your suggested changes are against consensus to begin with. i'm not under any obligation to 'vote' for or against your proposal. i am wholey against any proposed changes, as they appear to be obvious POV pushes. the lede is supposed to be a summary of the major points of the article. since this article's subject is highly contentious, the existing compromise wording, which is extremely minimal, helps prevent POV pushes by being a '30,000 ft view'. it is entirely adequate as is. Anastrophe (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

furthermore, you need to slow down. for one thing, there are many editors here on wikipedia. i'm quite sure in fact that there are more than four editors who work on wikipedia. just because others have not weighed in on this yet, does not mean that they are not owed a voice in it. if you review this discussion page, you'll see many more names than just the four you've selected. give them an opportunity to discuss the matter. that's what this page is for. Anastrophe (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If consensus in not made through vote then how is it made? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know this one.141.154.11.202 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

click the handy "help" link in the sidebar. Anastrophe (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If consensus requires that all parties agree tosomething, then I have some new for you, NOTHING in the current article has been agreed to by all parties. Due to lack of consensus, the whole article should therefor be deleted.16:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.11.202 (talk)

The existing lede was painstakingly negotiated and crafted necessarily vague to meet a POV balance point required in this contentious article. I see no need to revise it, much less to revise it by shifting the neutrality balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! don't remember any painfuil negotiations. Post a link for proof.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps thats because there are some editors who have been here more than the last fifteen minutes? i'm being sarcastic, of course. you're welcome to visit the discussion archives via the helpful links to them above. Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Been here for almost a year now. Try to keep up with the times.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

if only there were some more permanent identifier for "you" than a dotted quad notation string that changes on an irregular basis, it would be possible for everyone other than you to know who you are and how long you've been here. more's the pity. Anastrophe (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Was never a joiner, and I make it a point not to join organizations that thinks the concept of "stealing is Bad" is subject to debate. From wiki POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. 14:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.162.23 (talk)

Newcomer comment Since I was asked for input on this stalemate, I will give. I don't think "infringement by congress" is an appropriate lede at all. The bill of rights as a whole protects the people from the actions of all parts of government, not just the legislative branch. Police are not part of the legislative branch, and the 2nd protects from infringement by them as well. I would only propose one minor change to the lede:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. The meaning and scope of this right has been described as among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.

That is, simply change "a right" to "the right", as it is actually referred to in the amendment itself. "A right" seems unnecessarily vague. We concede in the next sentence that what exactly the right refers to is contested, so we don't need to also be vague in the first sentence. I hope this input helps break the stalemate. Gigs (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed change

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by Congress now revised to

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by all parts of the US government.

I'm in favor with the change per input from Gigs. Now asking other editors for input (notice I didn't use the word vote)68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would change "all parts of the US government" to "the federal government." (That would preclude readers from misconstruing 'U.S. government' to mean state governments as well. (Truwik (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

The 4 footnotes attached to Heller immediately directing viewer's attentiion to comments about the case, before they have read it, is misleading. The first says "for the first time...the Second Amendment protects an individual right..." without saying it protects the right, only from federal infringement. The next says this "will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation" which attempts to extend the Court's D.C. decision throughout the states. Then, "Individual Americans have a right to own guns" as though they never had the right before Heller. And the fourth, that the Court embraced the view that "there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense" which millions of Americans had been doing for decades. Those footnotes must be removed completely or be placed elsewhere. I will add the pertinent Heller quotes that clearly state the decision applied exclusively to the District of Columbia. The individual-right existed throughout the U.S. from our beginnings, there is no evidence that after Heller Americans squealed for joy and made a bee-line for gun shops. If that decision proved anything, it's that federal law (or ordinances under their jurisdiction - such as D.C.), now, may not infringe on individual-type weapons, as was done in the past. It did not discover a new right, it clamped down on infringement by citizens of the United States, on their fellow-citizens, and, inferentially, on future federal laws. (Truwik (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

You are invited to vote for the proposed changes to the lede.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

and in case you were wondering I am all for removal third part commentary on ALL legal cases shown in the article and moving them to a new section that can be called "Commentary on Legal Cases" or something similar.

We now have two votes to clean up the Heller case of third party commentary.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the dust is beginning to settle after Heller, I recommend reading this eye popping and insightful UCLA Law Review article[11] about the aftermath of the decision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eye popping yes, but not even close to being a neutral article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious what strikes you as 'not neutral'? In a nutshell, Scalia's logic in Heller amounted to an answer to Glen Harlan Reynolds 1996 Reason letter[12], whereby with a solid interpretation giving protection of an individual right to firearms for self defense "that gun owners would have less reason to fear creeping confiscation, and sensible gun control laws -- those aimed at disarming criminals, not ordinary citizens -- would pass much more easily. " This isn't a neutral versus non-neutral observation, but rather it seems to be the new status quo in the district courts, with virtually all the gun control laws now being confirmed as constitutional while simultaneously, the individual rights of the law abiding is solidly protected. This is fascinating how this has played out in the last nine months. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean virtually all gun laws get struck down don't you? Those Chicago suburb bans are one example.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heller decision only has effect in the District of Columbia: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment" (p. 64, opinion), and that's all that it means. Overturning a D.C. law only affects citizens who live there, a neutral position of Heller simply means accepting that. True, the Heller Court exposed the false reasoning, by the Court, in U.S. v. Miller but it did not overrule Miller. (Truwik (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

While true that Heller only directly effects the Washington DC ban, it indirectly effects future gun cases, as it can be used as precedent in those cases.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the only cases where Heller could be cited as precedent would be those in other federal territories. The 2A has never been incorporated in a state-law case. (Truwik (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Check your sources, and quit wasting talk page space with your WP:OR. Dozens of federal cases have already used Heller as precedence, commonly under USC Title 18 Section 922, and other federal codes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

version A of consensus = everybody agrees = I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel that all editors here would agree to anything.

Leaving version B = most agree = to determine if most agree, taking a vote works pretty well.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That definition is not relevant here. Here is the definition that matters. SMP0328. (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever wiki has to say, the fact of the mater is that you can't claim any kind of consensus unless you take a poll of all parties, and a poll is just another name for counting the votes. If you aren't allowed to ask how people feel on the issue (ie how they vote on it), how can you determine if consensus has been reached?

BTW: you are invited to join in the debate for a new lede. Complaints have been made that a limited number of editors should not foist their views on all editors and I would personally like to hear the views of all regular editors of this article.141.154.11.202 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Polls are not forbidden, but they aren't binding either. So you could conduct a poll, but the results of such a poll would not directly create a consensus; the poll could only be used to help reach a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Which editor(s) have been accused of foisting? May I recommend that the best method to build consensus does not include making offensive personal attacks, like accusations of foisting. (Even if you believe it to be true.) Making offensive accusations poisons the water, which makes cooperation later more difficult. And without cooperation, building consensus is hard to do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Everybody here is guilty of "foisting" except those that haven't done a single edit. If there is a section in the article that you don't believe should be there, then you have been "foisted" on, If you added something that someone else objected to, then you are the one "foisting". And now back to something a bit more interesting, what is you opinion of my proposed method of reaching a mutually disagreeable but workable consensus? It you don't like it feel free to suggest your own method. 141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy WP:NOR is designed to prevent 'foisting'. I have already answered your question. I recall the painstaking work that went into the crafting of the wording of the current lede section, and it is deliberately vague, as common sense calls for with such a contentious article. My judgment of your proposal is that you are attempting to push your personal point of view, as opposed to reading all the available reliable sourcing, and crafting an article that matches the point of view in the sourcing. Tell me, what reliable sourcing are you reading? All I see is your original legal analysis of selected snippets from primary court documents, which seems to violate WP:NOR policy. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Where was this painstaking crafting done? Post a link to that debate. I don't remember being invited.141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the 17 talk page history archives at the top of this page, going back for 5+ years, now. It's all there. It was painful. Yaf (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The current lede hasn't been there for 5 years. Try again! Only this time with a link to those "painstaking" discussions.141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to read all of that, you can start with Archive 10. SMP0328. (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked and confirmed that I objected to not including the word "infringed" in the lede. Seems I still object. Thus no consensus on the lede. It was "foisted" on me.

Please look up the meaning of the word "infringe" before continuing the POV dispute. 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look in books I see that there is debate over the meaning of the word infringed. Per WP:Policy, we should include all credibly reliable sides in that debate in the article. Presently the article suppresses the side of the debate which is not pro-gun. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at a dictionary I can't quite find a debate on the meaning of the word. I do find the MEANING however. Why don't you start with that? 4.156.78.223 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.11.202 (talk)

No, it hasn't been stasis for 5+ years. But, the current lede is the result of the last 5+ years of discussions that is all contained in the 17 archives that are only a click away. Just read the archives, if you really do want to see how it got to where it is, today. And, incidentally, I do agree with SaltyBoatr, above, in that the best method to build consensus around here does not include making offensive personal attacks. It is much easier to build consensus from developing mutual respect that can only develop over time with a fixed name/handle. Changing IP identities/handles repeatedly doesn't help you in building consensus. It also keeps you banned while the article is blocked against edits by IP addresses. Because of this, it would really help, too, if you would take a username, rather than having a different IP every few days/hours. You really do have many valid points that need to get worked into the article. We just need to work on your methods a little :-) Yaf (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it REALLY difficult to develop mutual respect for people that keep on trying to ban me from posting. Look in the mirror to find one of those self appointed "censors".141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But, the bans have not been because of content, but, rather, technique. It's not censorship. Edit warring is not permitted, even for a "good" cause. Rather than block you the last time, the admin chose to instead apply semi-protection to the article, whereby anonymous IP editors could not continue to violate WP:3RR policies. Get a user name, and this problem goes away, immediately. Edit war with a user name, though, and you, like every other editor, will find yourself getting blocked repeatedly by admins, for progressively longer and longer times each block in succession. Many good editors start out with a few blocks, and then learn how to edit in a much more cooperative way. You would really benefit from getting a fixed user account name. And, you would be able to contribute more, too. You do have some very good points. Yaf (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Trying to remove an itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion likely held by only one person in the whole wide world, in ACCORDANCE with wiki guidelines, is a lot less edit warring then the actions of a person who wants to keep that itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion in defiance of wiki guidelines.141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of 'books' try a dictionary. 'Infringement' means: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. For what purpose was the Second Amendment added? If we could reach a consensus on that, we could alter the lede accordingly. (Truwik (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

You are assuming that all the people here act in good faith. A bad assumption. Getting SaltyBoatr to say that the Second Amendment protects a right from government infringement, is about as hard a climbing Mt Everest with 2 broken legs. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no weight given to what I (or you) say. What matters is what the reliable sourcing says. In the case of "infringement" I see that the reliable sourcing says that all sorts of restrictions on firearms are allowed as constitutional under the Second Amendment. What Justice Scalia ruled[13] has much more importance than your original research using your interpretation of the dictionary definition, and more importantly, the "longstanding prohibition" laundry list exception in Heller is now shaking out to be the tipping point. Did you read the UCLA Law Review article[14] about this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An example of "foisting"

Salty Boatr just added a statement that

Since Heller, over eighty lawsuits related to firearms legislation have been decided in federal court.

With the source being a newspaper. I am asking for a more verifiable source for 80 cases settled, such as a listing of court cases. After being told by newspapers for the past 2 years that the housing market has hit bottom, that the stock market has hit bottom, and that there will be no recession, never mind a depression, I am quite leery of newspaper claims to anything. Failure to provide a more verifiable source will be a "foisting" of unverifiable material.141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

except that your discomfort with newspapers is not wikipedia's - nor your fellow editors - concern. newspapers - for the most part - meet WP:V and WP:RS. the policies are compromises in themselves, for example, while the best sources are considered to be scholarly works that have been peer-reviewed, many sources that do not meet that threshhold are entirely valid and acceptable. it's a continuum, from best to least, and most editors find themselves in the middle ground (e.g. reliable websites). the new york times is considered a highly reliable source for many things. not all things, of course, but many. there are many other newspapers that are highly reliable within the context of wp's policies.

in a nutshell, you may not like that the new york times is considered a reliable source, but that's irrelevant. it is a reliable source. find a reliable source that counters their claims, and you may have something to work with. right now, 'discomfort' isn't going to take the discussion very far. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll compromise halfway. I want a list of 40 of those 80 cases.141.154.13.150 (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Critique of NY article points out it is full of errors, for instance

http://newledger.com/2009/03/gun-rights-and-the-constitution-was-heller-insignificant/

Let’s start with the most obvious facts which the Times overlooked. On the day that Heller was decided, the citizens of five Chicago suburbs, and of Chicago itself, were prohibited from owning guns. Residents of apartments provided by the San Francisco Housing Authority were prohibited from owning any gun. Within 24 hours of the Heller decision, gun rights organizations—including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)—filed lawsuits against the gun bans.

Today, the residents of San Francisco public housing can own guns in their homes. In four of the five Chicago suburbs (Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka), the handgun bans have been repealed. Yet according to the Times, “So far, Heller is firing blanks.”

BTW:I'm still waiting for that listing of 40 out of 80 cases68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In none of the lawsuits you mentioned did the courts make a ruling favorable of gun rights. The changes in gun law you describe were simple legislative political discretion, and could be revised back at political whim.

Court rulings are another thing. I have been keeping track and can specifically identified about 70 post-Heller federal court cases challenging gun laws on 2nd Amendment basis, and all of these rulings have been in favor of the gun bans. I have hesitated to put these in the article because, in my opinion, direct readings of court documents are original research. Are you asking me to put a list of 40 rulings of these 70 cases into the article? Alternately, we can wait until Professor's Winkler's article[15] gets published in June in the journal of the UCLA Law Review, as he has counted 80 post-Heller 2A cases upholding gun laws. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion does not match mine. Please list 40 of the 80 cases. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I will start adding them to the article then, bear with me this will take a few days. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a handful of new cases, giving one example case for each major precedence catagory, "felon in possession", "misdemeanor domestic abuse", "sawed off shotgun", "unregistered firearm", "school zone", "machine gun", "firearm importation", "concealed weapon without permit", "straw purchase", "post office", "illegal alien", "users of controlled substances". (With a few more to go.) In all these instances there are multiple cases, but I hesitate to include them all redundantly because this section should not become a giant list, so I am leaning towards just giving one example of each type.

Additionally, the issue of the bail bond cases are out of place curiosities, red herrings here, as bail bonds are subject to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment not the Second Amendment. In other words, the plaintiff argued that their Fifth and Fourteenth 'due process' rights were violated and they did not argue that their Second Amendment right was violated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask for additions to the article, I asked for a listing of 40 of the 80 cases. Above you say you know of 70. If you know of 70, it should be no great hardship to list 40.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter the talk page with my personal research. If you want to confirm the number, the information is easily available to you at a law library, no matter anyway. What is important is the fact that I have cited the 80 case number count with references to the UCLA Law Review and New York Times. If you question that these two sources are not reliable sources, feel free to do so. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I want YOU to confirm the number. You made a statement that you knew 70 of those 80 cases. List 40 of them.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

your demand has no merit, in policy or practice. two reliable sources make the statement. for purposes of wikipedia, this article, and this article page, that's all that matters. if you dispute those numbers, find reliable sources that dispute them. your dispute with them here is immaterial. sorry. that's how wikipedia works. Anastrophe (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My demand is based on the fact that the NYT article "conveniently" avoids mention that 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs voided their own gun bans. I consider that "unreliable". Do you?68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article actually does mention one of these Chicago Court cases, McDonald v. Chicago, the one which is being appealed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't mention the ones where gun bans were voided.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should that have been mentioned? What happened is that four municipalities voluntarily repealed their handgun ban ordinances, and saved the high cost of fighting the lawsuit in court. The fifth municipality did fight the lawsuit in court, and won[16]. The handgun ban was ruled constitutional. It is reasonable to guess that the four municipalities could have also won their court cases banning handguns too had they been willing the spend the money on the legal fees. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet again Please list 40 of those 80 cases. You stated you know of 70 of hose 80.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you dispute the reliability of the New York Times and/or the UCLA Law Review, go ahead and do so. I refuse to list my personal research on this talk page WP:NOR, so my answer to your request to list 40 of 80 cases is: No. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely you refuse to post them because you don't have them.68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I did identify about 14 representative cases using reliable secondary sourcing[17]. That is not good enough for you? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope! Not good enough. It just means you have 26 to go. A paltry effort if you have records of 70, as you claimed above.68.160.162.23 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

it is a valid point that the NYT article conveniently avoids mentioning those lawsuits that were settled out of court. that said, it does not change that the NYT is a reliable source. kopel's opinion piece can be quoted and cited as counterpoint opinion, but is not sufficient to 'invalidate' the NYT article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As counterpoint please add mention in the article that in 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs, gun bans have been repealed. A certain Yaf and a certain SaltyBoatr have gotten the article protected from anon editors, othrwise I would do it myself.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article? Those 4 of 5 Chigaco suburbs are already prominently mentioned.

Quoting Kopel's piece: "It’s true that, as Winkler points out, federal courts have rejected lots of Second Amendment claims brought by convicted felons, and by persons convicted of domestic violence, or by persons wishing to possess machine guns." What I take from David Kopel's essay is the fact that there has been a shift of political perception resulting from Heller that has lead to a lessening of the political will behind gun control laws, and this has resulted in the easement of a few local local laws, but the article already describes this fact with undue emphasis. The fact that the NRA cases filed early settled out of court is given too much weight, considering the many dozens of court cases that have followed which ruled upholding the gun bans. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the article to show that Heller has had minimal impact when even the article itself states that it has had some impact is a breach of POV. Please add reference to 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs rescinding gun bans as the other side of the story in order top restore neutral POV.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RE SaltyBoatrs statement that the issue with the Chicago suburbs is already mentioned in the article per the following Have you looked at the article? Those 4 of 5 Chigaco suburbs are already prominently mentioned. I looked and could not find any mention in the article as alleged by SaltyBoatr. I think one of us needs a new pair of glasses and I don't think it's me.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked again and found some mention, although I would say that the Chicago suburbs vacating their own gun laws is "prominently hidden" and not prominently mentioned as one has to go and read the backup from the footnotes to find out what is going on. The article itself makes no mention of Chicago suburbs and makes a vague reference to NRA lawsuits.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"regulated"

Not one sentence in this article clarifies that "regulated" here means "trained", an archaic use of the word that is confusing to many. I'd rather not jump into this fray, but I suggest that this information be worked into the article. Gigs (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See section 2.5 Well regulated militia which contains Alexander Hamilton's opinion of what constitutes a well regulated militia.

BTW: we are currently in a dispute over replacing the currently intro to the article, with a larger more comprehensive intro bu are currently at a stalemate. See section 19 Proposing new lede. Your input would be welcome to break that stalemate.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What if we prefaced it with a note? I'll be bold and do so. Gigs (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The change looks good to me. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I reject the suggestion that this be worked into the article. This 2A Article isn't about how militias are regulated. It's about arms not being infringed by Congress, whether such arms are suitable for military use or not. (Truwik (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read the section in question. it is there to show that at the time of the Constitution was written, the usage of the term "well regulated" meant "well trained". The meaning of words changes over the ages, and to understand what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, we need to understand how they used that phrase.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Background - English Common Law

The: "This dispute over the scope of this right was discussed in District of Columbia v. Heller", here, is flat wrong. The Heller Court said "a prefatory clause [militia] does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause [infringement]". This had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'scope of this right.' Even if it did, it shouldn't be under 'English Common Law.' This is a classic example of twisting words to agree with one's agenda. (Truwik (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I have to disagree. The Heller opinion covers a lot of ground. The following is only one example of the Supreme Court discussing the "scope of the right" in that opinion.

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Post Heller Court cases listed by SaltyBoatr

The link provided to show that they exist (aka the citation), goes to an abstract of an article which mentions none of these court cases. The article itself can be downloaded and a check of that shows these cases are not discussed but are merely mentioned in the footnotes. I therefore find the citation lacking. While I am not asking that they be removed, I do ask that a better citation be provided.

An example of an acceptable citation would be the following link to US v Artez

http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1106/united-states-v-artez 68.160.162.23 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list so many cases in that subsection? Anybody who is in prison on a weapons charge will use Heller in an effort to get the charges dismissed or conviction overturned. Most of these attempts will be frivolous and will quickly fail. The article shouldn't give an exhausting list of such cases. I believe it would be better to remove those new added cases from that subsection and simply refer to them via the source provided by SaltyBoatr. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that the listing is excessive. A large paragraph listing the various rules upheld would serve the same purpose, be more readable, and take up quite a bit less space. Something similar to what Winkler did on the bottom of page 14 and top of page 15 of his "Hellers Catch 22" article. To see click on link, hit download (look carefully - small print), then select the nearest download site.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=135922568.160.162.23 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I would make that change, but first I want to hear from SaltyBoatr; no need to start an edit war. :) SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open to reformatting, but the listing is already abridged to show just one case for each precedent for law upheld after Heller. Each precedent needs to be mentioned, maybe the case names could be moved to footnotes to make the section more compact? And, as I said, the two similar bail bond cases are Fifth Amendment challenges, and can be moved to that other article as they are misplaced in the Second Amendment article. Also, the voluntary out of court settlements are not really rulings, and set no precedence what-so-ever, and are therefore nothing more than curiosities or red herrings. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

if they are mentioned or commented upon in reliable sourcing, and are considered notable in that they accomplished overturning gun bans based on second amendment challenges, surely you would not suggest that such mention must be excluded from this article? i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? Anastrophe (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What 'reliable sourcing' are you reading? You assert: "...considered notable in that they accomplished...", who is the "they"? When I check for notability I see notability given in the advocacy weblogs and in the advocacy press, but not elsewhere. Point to some WP:RS examples of notability please. And what was accomplished? The reporting at the time said that what was accomplished was the saving of court costs: "Fighting in court to try to keep the law would cost money the village does not have"[18]. It is a logical fallacy found in the advocacy blogs and press that this was a legal victory, when in the mainstream press it was reported as legal intimidation of a deep pocket lawsuit. Consider that the one lawsuit of these five NRA lawsuits that actually was ruled upon by a court was lost and under current Illinois legal precedent, handgun bans are legal[19]. The other four lawsuits which were settled and withdrawn to save embarrassment[20] and legal fees hardly amounts to a notable accomplishment. Tell me, I ask again, what sourcing are you reading? I answered your question. I have asked you several questions, please be civil and answer each. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i guess you missed the first word of my post. i'll repost my query: if they are mentioned or commented upon in reliable sourcing, and are considered notable in that they accomplished overturning gun bans based on second amendment challenges, surely you would not suggest that such mention must be excluded from this article?" now, rather than answering a question with a question, could you first actually answer both my questions? i'd appreciate it.Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though you would also need to establish notability and the presentation would need to be neutral. Presently in the article it is not. Now, please answer my questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)so, based upon "yes", you're saying that even if notability were established in reliable sourcing, you would suggest that mention of them must be excluded from the article. interesting. my question was procedural, your followup questions were based on a literal reading that overlooked the word "if". so, i have no questions to answer. i still await an answer to my second question, to wit, "i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? ". Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with you remind me of the essay WP:SOUP, all appearances of a talk page tactic of distraction fallacy. I answered your 'red herring' question 14:55 above: "It is a logical fallacy found in the advocacy blogs and press that this was a legal victory, when in the mainstream press it was reported as legal intimidation of a deep pocket lawsuit. Consider that the one lawsuit of these five NRA lawsuits that actually was ruled upon by a court was lost and under current Illinois legal precedent, handgun bans are legal." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago suburb bans, Evanston

Whatever peoples opinion on why the Chicago suburbs folded and didn't go to court to fight for the gun bans, at least one suburb voided the gun ban because it recognized that the law was against it and not because of funding issues. Certainly paying to fight the NRA lawsuit was an issue, but no "the issue".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-10-gunsbans_N.htm

Evanston ended its ban last month, but the NRA's lawsuit still is pending, says Alderman Steve Bernstein. A law firm offered to defend the city at no cost, and Bernstein says talks about reinstating the ban are underway.

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend the ban wasn't an option in Evanston, Bernstein says. "It's a question of priorities," he says. "If you thought you could win the case, that would be different."

an also

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4140

"Quite honestly, we cannot afford to fight for principle at this point when the law is against us," said Alderman Steven J. Bernstein, Fourth Ward. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The one NRA lawsuit of these five that was actually fought and ruled on in a court was lost in December. That trumps the speculation made in June, which in hindsight proved wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heller lost at the lower court level. Does that mean Heller lost? Neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court thought so.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and excessive use of the term "individual"

I notice that the article uses the term "individual" as in "individual rights", "right of the individual", etc.. a total of 38 times. While I see the recent 5-4 ruling of the SCOTUS last June which for the first time recognized an individual component to the right protected by the Second Amendment, it is not the only component, at present and historically. The heavy emphasis on the term "individual" in the article seems to mirror the political advocacy as opposed to matching the balance found in reliable sourcing and appears excessive which may violates WP:NPOV. This should be discussed and fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

upon what policy are you suggesting that a count of a particular word is violative of NPOV? i lost count of variations on the word "arm", "armed", "disarmed" around 120 iterations. does this mean the article is NPOV? your claim that heller was the first time an individual component was recognized, which contraverts the long history provided in this article of opinion that supports an individual component. are you stating that this article must only discuss SC decisions, and that all other reliably sourced content must be scrubbed? a bold suggestion. not supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

in case i wasn't clear: the phrases you quote - what context were they in? taking single words or phrases out of context and counting them up is not a meaningful metric to determine NPOV, nor is it supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Suffice it to say, neutrality is still under dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

no, sorry, but a good try. taking single words or phrases out of context does not establish undue weight. please provide context for each of these 38 instances you counted up. then perhaps an argument can be made. absent context, you're just performing your own unique brand of original research on the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You (SaltyBoatr) are just going to have to live with it. Even the Stevens dissent to Heller, stated that the right was an individual right. Using the opinions of Supreme Court Justices as a measuring stick, the collective rights view should have NO article space.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

and as for what the Supreme Court thinks of the collective right view

But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago bans upheld based on "Presser v Illinois". Heller not considerd.

Did some reading on the ruling upholding the gun bans and it used "Presser v Illinois" as precedent and not Heller. The excuse being that this was not a Second Amendment case, as the gun bans were not instituted by the feds.

It will be interesting to see if the following quote from Presser is brought up on the appeals

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)