Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Possible revisions in lead

I'm getting confused. I thought that I was agreeing with Grahamboat and now in my confused mind it looks like they are taking issue with my agreement with them.  :-) And I agree completely with Grahamboat's 04:33 post. What I was saying should NOT be included is characterizing pre-Heller court findings to be overall one way or the other on the individual right question. The best thing would be for someone to propose specific (unbundled) changes and we could use those for an unconfused discussion. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer something along these lines.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] The Heller decision resolved many prior disagreements in the lower court cases on the individual verses collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. (ref CRS) In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] Grahamboat (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) belong in section 8.6.2 Heller along with the disagreements on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller. Grahamboat (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not a single case in the history of the United States that ever invalidated any American statute on the basis of the Second Amendment prior to Heller. NO Federal Court that EVER looked at it accepted the individual rights interpretation before 2000. That's what CRS said, that's what the NYT said, that's what the Library of Congress said, and I ask you respectfully, North8000, if you disagree with this assessment, to find me any court in the country at any time pre-2000 that found an individual right to bear arms under the Fourth Amendment or invalidated a law under the Second Amendment. Assuming you can't find any such case -- and I'm quite confident based on these impeccable sources that there is none -- it does not make sense to me to hide this fact from those who are coming to wikipedia to find a neutral, verifiable source of information. I would like other editors to weigh in as well. But unfortunately the bold-faced solution is inaccurate in that it states there was a difference in lower court opinions when in fact, no court prior to Emerson in 2001, ever claimed the individual rights analysis, and no court prior to the Heller case itself invalidated a law under the Second Amendment. We must be careful not to rewrite pre-Heller history based on the Heller opinion. Just because five justices of the Supreme Court say one thing (and four vehemently disagree) does not and cannot change the pre-Heller past. The history of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

-->I have problems with weasel words in the boldfaced language like "mixed views" in that while any human can have any view about anything, no US court found for the individual theory prior to 2000. The "individual rights theory" is a recent theory in American jurisprudence, barely a decade old. Even Robert Bork and Ronald Reagan supported the literalist/strict constructionist interpretation of the militia clause (i.e. the collective rights theory) as recently as 1989. See, e.g., citations in http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Where%20Will%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Revolution%20Lead.pdf. Again, I don't dispute it's currently the law. I dispute those that suggest it was law anywhere in the USA prior to the 21st Century. Wikipedia should know the state of the law pre-Heller, just as the lead to Brown v. Board of Education states the law prior to that decision. The Brown lead is certainly not an endorsement of Plessy v. Ferguson. Neither would a lead on the Second Amendment that mentions its interpretation pre-Heller be an endorsement of those views.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello GreekParadise. You seem to be blending two different questions here. I may be misinterpreting, but I'm seeing it as you are using a valid argument against a non-existent proposal (of characterizing pre-Heller court findings) as a way to justify doing the very thing that you were arguing against (characterizing pre-Heller court findings). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not a lot of case law pertaining to the full meaning of the 2A prior to Emerson. Up until the 1960s there was very little discussion on collective rights v individual rights. Before that most people assumed a law abiding citizen could own a gun. With the enactment of Gun Control Act of 1968 the collective right theory stated to abound. BY 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee including Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Edward M. Kennedy, Robert C. Byrd, and Patrick J. Leahy supported the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

The lede should be about what the 2nd A means as defined by SCOTUS, the ultimate authority, not what people thought the law ought to be. It is OK to briefly mention prior contention, but not a long litany attempting to diminish the true meaning. Prior Heller discussion belongs in 8.6.2 Heller.Grahamboat (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree about where the history should fit in the article, I am absolutely in agreement with North and Grahamboat about not distracting the user with POV talking points. The fact that the judgement was 5-4 is mentioned in 8.6. Although it is a fact, giving it undue weight is POV. Likewise the fact that no gun control law was previously found unconstitutional; as a bit of trivia, it might have a place in the article, but presented in a way intended to somehow diminish Heller, it is POV. Celestra (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer my earlier suggestion, I would be willing to discuss the following suggestion in paragraph two BOLD:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3]The Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court did a comprehensive review of the meaning of the Second Amendment resolving prior vague interpretations and conflicts within the lower courts and the Supreme Court itself. The 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson (2001) and the 9th Circuit Court in Silveira v. Lockyer (2003) reached opposite opinions regarding the individual rights verses collective rights (Militia) interpretation of the Second Amendment. In the last Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, United States v. Miller (1939), both views claimed a victory as the ruling was vague failing to give either side a clear-cut victory.[4] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[5]

Since none of the other frequent editors to this article have expressed an opinion, perhaps we have a consensus by default to make no changes to the lede. That would be OK with me. Grahamboat (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that as-is is better then the bolded idea. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I see only a sidebar mention of Emerson, and no coverage of Emerson or Silviera. Should we put those in? North8000 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the bolded language is it is unsourced (and inaccurate) in that it implies that the conflicts between the lower courts existed for some time in American history. In fact, there was no conflict prior to the Emerson case. "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. This is the New York Times by the Senior Supreme Court Reporter there. I have given an impeccable source for this fact. (This is not an op-ed. It's a news report) No one has ever given a source for the contrary fact. If the consensus is not include this fully-sourced fact anywhere in the article and to imply without any evidence whatsoever in any publication there was some court conflict prior to 2000, then I must insist on re-putting up the POV tag and seeking mediation. I don't understand how an unsourced and incorrect belief can trump a fully sourced fact.GreekParadise (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that "both sides claimed a victory in Miller," just as it would be irrelevant that segregationists and integrationists both claimed a victory in Brown. The question is how the courts decided it. And it's incontrovertible that all Federal Courts in the United States of America from the Miller case in 1939 to 2000 solely found the Second Amendment to be solely a militia right. It is extremely relevant to the history of the Second Amendment that the was the universal interpretation of US Courts prior to the Emerson case. Just as it's also extremely relevant that the Heller and McDonald opinions changed this long-standing interpretation to become the first cases in US history to strike down a statute as unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment under the individual theory.

In sum, please let me know whether there is a willingness to compromise and to put up the truth that no one here has ever cited a single source to dispute. Conversely, if anyone has any source to contradict this impeccable one, please let me know. But unless a) there is a claim that the many sources I have cited (NYT, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service) stating without qualification that the collective rights theory was the view in the US courts prior to 2000 are somehow not neutral or not respectable; or b) someone finds some source somewhere to claim that a court in the nation prior to 2000 did strike down a statute under the Second Amendment or even claimed the individual right to bear arms theory was the law, I don't see any choice but to go with the sourced material over the unsourced vague opinions of some editors. And if there is insistence that vague unsourced opinions trump uncontradicted sources, I will put up the POV tag and seek a request for comment and/or mediation. I don't know what else to do. Sourced fact trumps unsourced opinion in wikipedia, right?

I'm open to any suggested compromise that allows readers of the article to know this truth. My favored suggestion is to simply include in the history the accurate 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century interpretations of the US courts. And once we complete that history section, write a fair lede to summarize it, giving due deference to the Supreme Court landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 that changed the prior interpretation of all US courts prior to 2000 from the collective to the individual theory. GreekParadise (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources: See, e.g., Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)GreekParadise (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation and overruling the "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling of the lower federal courts prior to 2001 that the Second Amendment "preserves a collective, rather than an individual right." (Citation Love v. Peppersack and United States v. Warin.) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession found by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4], overruling prior law dating back to 1876 holding that only the federal government was so limited.(citation Cruikshank).

The only source that you gave is an op ed piece making that claim. Also, I'm against us editors here trying to characterize history, especially in the great-efforts-at-spin way that you are proposing. We could find hundreds of biased opinions on this on either side of the question. The second part was even more so. Incorporation is not a "new reversal" it is continuation of a very old reversal, with Heller merely providing the moment to continue the process to another amendment. Sincerely, font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greek Paradise - please remember to sign all your posts – it is becoming increasingly difficult to follow you. The bold suggestion was sourced (4), not listed on talk page, but easily supplied. The information is accurate. Your statement "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds” is false. Your point that no federal court struck down any gun control law is irrelevant in that there were scant cases reviewed. Cruikshank was not overturned by McDonald. Your proposed changes are POV suggesting that the Heller decision was some radical change in Second Amendment thinking. GP proposes using a 1995 case Love v. Peppersack to support his claims Ignoring Emerson (2001) and the 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee. You have not established any support for your proposals. Editors are willing to work with you along NPOV grounds. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Graham, the source (4) is Adam Liptak, the Chief NYT reporter for the Supreme Court and the exact source I want to use!!! How is he reliable when you want to use him and not reliable when I want to use him? Please read what Adam Liptak said. I hesitate to repeat it yet a third time, but it's clear that you did not read it. So I will repeat it one last time and put it bold: "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias..... Liptak reports in fact that there was a radical change in court holdings on the Second Amendment. And the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service agree. You cannot cite a source as reliable for one proposition and deny the same source's reliability for another proposition. I will therefore put back up the POV tag until we come to a consensus that Liptak and the NYT is or is not a reliable source. Also Cruikshank ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. McDonald said it does. I doubt there's a legal scholar in the country that says that the holding in Cruikshank continues to stand after McDonald. Can you find me one? Also, I don't want to ignore Emerson. Not in the least. Like the CRS, I acknowledge that Emerson was the first federal case to hold a contrary view and that Heller adopted the Emerson view. Please, I ask with respect, that anyone joining this conversation take the time to read the sources I'm citing.GreekParadise (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise? I am willing to put the post-Miller, pre-Heller federal cases from 1942-2000 in the history section with only a brief mention in the lede such as "overruling the holding of lower federal courts which, in the 20th Century, found the Second Amendment preserved a collective right to serve in a militia, rather than an individual right to bear arms".GreekParadise (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that what we have in there now.....listing the cases and viewpoints without trying to create a characterization is the real wikipedian compromoise. This includes giving space to the now obsolete collective right viewpoint. (And I call cherry picking an op-ed "create" in Wikipedia terms.) North8000 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi GreekParadise – source (4) was not Adam Liptak, it was Andrew McClurg, p. 139 that appears as ref. 144 in the current article. We know “In March [2007], for the first time …” is not true because of Emerson. The Cruikshank ruling went out when SCOTUS heard Miller. I gave you two proposals that accomplished your stated request in a NPOV way. Your suggestions appear POV because stressing "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling” tends to distract from the Heller ruling. The facts are that none of your cited cases dealt with individual rights. Miller upheld the National Firearms Act (1939), Silveira v. Lockyer dealt with California’s assault rifle ban. Neither of these cases was about individual rights but rather if there could be restrictions on that right. Please take another look at my last proposal and see if it satisfies. A statement of facts without a characterization. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat, I meant footnote 4 in the current article. Emerson (2001) did not invalidate any law on the basis of the Second Amendment, even though it was the first to cite the individual theory. The NYT, CRS, and LOC are all right on this point. And I'm glad you realize that Cruikshank was overruled but it was overruled by McDonald. (Miller, as you point out, upheld a federal law). How about this compromise proposal (citations to be added)?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The first law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was the District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2008 in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected to service in a militia, as long as that arm is used for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession, ownership, sale, and use listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the 21st century, federal courts upheld the Second Amendment's prefatory militia clause as delimiting the scope of the right to bear arms to a collective right to serve in in a well-regulated militia.

In a second landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, overruling prior case law dating back to 1875 holding that the Second Amendment restricts the federal Government alone.

If you disagree, please be specific about whether you disagree because you doubt the reliability of my sources that cite these facts or for some other reason. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GP – Your last suggestion is far better, less POV and may be the beginning of a consensus. I suggest rewording the first sentence, paragraph 2 to The District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement was the first gun law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). I don’t think case numbers are needed in the lede (note word duplication in the last line paragraph 2). Conceptually I have no major objections, perhaps some word tweaking. Let’s see what input other editors have. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we are coming to a consensus and I fully accept your change to my first sentence of paragraph 2. (It's more concise and better written than my own.) With that change, are we in agreement?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GP - Pretty much. Suggest waiting a couple of days for other input. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise, I mean this is a matter of fact (not nasty) way, but I see your statements as an assertion that failure to add some creative contrived spin constitutes POV. Until recent decades the core question was never even directly addressed by higher level courts, much less having been determined by them to be collective rights model. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I don't mean to be nasty either. I know you think that what you say is true, but I think you are simply mistaken. What is your source? There are at least nine cases that say you are wrong, and I have cited many of them. I have also cited the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times, and the Library of Congress. Perhaps the most scholarly work is the CRS, which makes clear that from 1942-2000, the collective view was the ONLY view EVER upheld in US Federal Court. And it's the reason no case prior to Heller struck down a law as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Part of the CRS article even criticizes the federal courts' reading of Miller from 1942-2000, so you may want to cite that part of the CRS article to argue the courts were wrong for those 60 years. But criticism notwithstanding, it was the law, not some "creative contrived spin." I can find hundreds of sources that say it was the law. I agree there was no Supreme Court case that addressed the Second Amendment between Miller (1939) and Heller (2008) but that's a different claim from no "higher level courts" found the collective version to be the law. Can you find me a single reliable source that agrees with what you say was the law? A single "individual case" ever found in any US federal or state court before 2000? Why do you think conservative Chief Justice Burger, the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (initially) and every single President prior to George W. Bush that considered the matter all accepted without question the collective view. It's because it was the prevailing view in American Law (and the sole view of the courts) until the 21st Century. Please research my sources. I know you think you are right on this, but perhaps upon reading the CRS article and the NYT article you will change your mind. Have you read them yet?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I can be wordy -- sorry -- so let me summarize what I wrote above:

1) I request that anyone who disputes what I've written provide a reliable source with a contrary view.

2) I ask that anyone who disputes what I've written read the CRS and NYT articles I've provided before contesting this issue further.GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been twelve days. No further comment. Grahamboat and Kvng have expressed support for revising the lede in the manner I did above (and Celestra did as well, at least for the idea that it be revised). And North8000, the only holdout, has not yet provided a single reliable source with a contrary view to that expressed by the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, and the Library of Congress (all of which I consider reliable). That's as much a consensus as is possible on wikipedia. Unless I receive further commentary by Monday, I will make the change as above with Grahamboat's change (adding citations of course).GreekParadise (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

NO Your proposed changes and the sources do not belong even on talk pages. If you need help with policies or sources ask me on my talk page. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. J8079s (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NO, what you just said is a misstatement of what has occurred. Grahamboat suggested a change that could start this on a direction towards something tha might gain consensus. It was not an endorsement of the rest of your proposal, and one item of it remains many-times-over problematic. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times used frequently in wikipedia a reliable source?

Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times (biography here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html and on wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html was considered a reliable source for his reporting on the McDonald decision (see footnote 4) but his front-page story (not an op-ed) was deemed unreliable by a couple of editors here for his reporting on pre-Heller case law. I submit that Liptak IS a reliable source for all his reporting and that I may add information from his front-page story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html, just as it already has been added in footnote 89 here (not by me): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms. Does anyone still dispute his reliability? Presuming he is good enough (and unless someone continues to argue for the contrary), I will proceed to cite this very important article in this entry.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Trying to put a far reaching assertion/opinion from an op ed in as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia IMHO misses the mark by several levels. This is a different question from wp:rs which both his articles and most articles in NRA publications may meet. But nobody is claiming "POV" for failure to use an NRA op ed for the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A front page story by a reporter is not an op ed. Unless you have some source claiming it is an op-ed, I will ask you to please refrain from this characterization. It is no more an op-ed than the article cited by the same reporter in footnote 4.GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, but setting that aside that is only one of invalid layers in the construction needed to support what you are promoting doing. (Please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter.) The layers are:

• Wanting to present a broad (mis)characterization in contested area as fact in the voice of wikipedia
• Faulty, as detailed above. Interpreting a lack of a finding of the opposite (during the period where the core question didn't matter much) as being a finding.
• Use of a cherry picked piece
• Use of an op ed piece
• Wanted to put it into the lead versus the body, a direct violation of what the lead should be

Again, please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

North, the lede is currently cherry picked. It cites only one interpretation of the Second Amendment (the Heller case) in the lede and wants to end it there, rather than putting Heller in its historical context as the most recent interpretation of the federal courts, contrasting with the long-running contrary interpretation that existed for more than sixty years prior (and, for McDonald, more than 130 years prior). If you want to take the Heller and McDonald decisions completely out of the lede, and just have the first two sentences, ending with 1791, that is justifiable and NPOV but I believe quite sparse. But once you put in the most recent interpretation, I think you have to briefly include the ones that existed for many decades, and as many as 130 years prior, as well. The judiciary's interpretation of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008, and this is, after all, an entry on the Second Amendment and not on the Heller decision. In my bolded compromise, I put far more focus on Heller and McDonald then under the interpretations in the centuries precedent. All I ask is for one small sentence and one small portion of a sentence to put the Heller and McDonald decisions in their proper context. They were landmark decisions, but they would not have been landmark if they had merely restated current law. Again, I note that the wikipedia entry on Brown v. Board of Education mentions Plessy v. Ferguson (the case it overturned) in the second sentence of the lede. GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs sound like an op-ed, but, if you read beyond that, you see that's not where it goes. The Times does not label it an op-ed. It cannot be discounted in this way.

The lead lacks any discussion of the interpretation of the Amendment prior to Heller. Introduction of a bit of this material in the lead would be very welcome. And would be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. -—Kvng 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kvng, do you support revising the lead as per what I have written in bold above (adding citations of course, including the NYT article and others I have cited, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, to back up every word written)? GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we keep lede change discussions in the Possible revisions in lead section. Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion only in enough detail to understand that the solution is not there yet. It looked like User:Celestra had a good plan but it hasn't been executed. I will see if I can find some time to make a more significant contribution to that discussion a little later. -—Kvng 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Keep discussion alive.GreekParadise (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC

There's been some question above about the reliability of the Providence Foundation as a source on the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights.

After it started to get heated, everyone kind of backed off for a bit. I think we've all had time to collect ourselves, though, so I thought I'd open it back up and see what happens. Any additional input would be appreciated. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Just to be clear, the question here is whether the Providence Foundation is a reliable source of information about the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the question phrased here is both ambiguous (do you mean meeting wp:rs criteria, do you mean actually reliable, and do you mean so authoritative that their opinion on a broad topic can be stated as fact.) and also only one of the several questions blended into that discussion. The others included particular content questions. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• RfC comment. Ugh. I came here from the RfC notice, and I'm not going to watch discussion after I comment here. I don't know what all the discussions have been, and I don't want to know. I'm going to confine myself to a very narrow question, one that I think Bdb484 has asked: whether or not the Providence Foundation website is a reliable source about "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". No, it is not a reliable source for that. Reliable sources would be academic historians writing about the Framers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC comment. Agree with Tryptofish. The Providence Foundation web site is not a reliable source for this aspect of topic. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, gang. There were obviously lots of other elements to the debate, but Tryptofish was able to narrow it down to the only matter that I'm requesting comment on here -- an assessment of whether it's appropriate to use Providence as it's being used in the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have to concur with the treatment by Tryptofish. Just looking at the mission statement of the Providence Foundation makes it quite clear that they are not undertaking to disinterestedly document or investigate the motives, principles, and beliefs of the framers of the US Constitution, but rather promote and support a Christian worldview. From their website, the mission statement begins:

  The Providence Foundation is a Christian educational organization whose mission is to train and network leaders to transform their culture for Christ, and to teach all citizens how to disciple nations.

  While the Providence Foundation is doubtless entitled to its own view and mission, this makes them clearly inappropriate as a reliable historical source. They may indeed be a reliable source for their own POV, which is not really a fringe one, but certainly not as regards "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". siafu (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment Please format RfC as simple questions that don't require those engaging to read vast debates... If what's at stake here is Providence Foundation as WP:RS. Then, clearly, no, it's not. Not by a long way. It promotes an outright, declared POV. --Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment Not reliable. Clear POV.GreekParadise (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment - Completely fails our standards as to reliable sourcing and our expectations as to neutral point-of-view. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment - Not reliable. The organization is "A Christian educational organization" and is steeped in contemporary partisan debate on this subject. Now, if this organization would publish articles and analyze religious influences of the framers of the Second Amendment - that would be a good contribution. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this RFC the page in question 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' [1] is not a product of POV it is taken from United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings in “United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson.” . The full text is available at Findlaw [2] and elsewhere. It was wrong to question the site rather than the page being used. As with all questionable sources we dont need it. J8079s (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Two different versions of the second amendment

In your display of the different texts of the second amendment, the text as (supposedly) adopted by Congress is absolutely grammatically incorrect. Obviously the recorder inserted the extra commas either through ignorance or simply a copy writing error. Why then was the grammar corrected before the amendment could be submitted to the states for ratification? And why has this problem not been discussed in any hearing (at least to my limited knowledge of court proceedings)?

Let us look at the text as you say it was passed by Congress:

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.

Justice Scalia mentions a "prefatory clause." There is only one clause in the sentence: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (sic) shall not be infringed." The simple subject is "right"; the simple predicate, "shall be infringed." No combination of the other words in this sentence can constitute a clause, as there is no verb other than the one in the single independent clause in the sentence ("being" can only be a verb when accompanied by an auxiliary such as "is,""are," "was," or "were."). Consider for example this sentence which corresponds to the second amendment's sentence: "Heavy rain being probable this afternoon, no teacher shall prohibit students' carrying of umbrellas in the school building." Can we interpret that as saying that unless there is a probability of rain, a teacher may prohibit students from carrying their umbrellas?

In the corrected and ratified text of the amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a participial phrase. In order for it to say what the gun control advocates would like it to say, it should be framed this way: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as they are participating in a well regulated militia."Pre-1967 English student (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Pre-1967 English student MLA Handbook

Regarding your later paragraphs, that was a main point in the Heller decision. A preface does not place a condition on the operative clause. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The prefatory phrase in the 2nd Amendment (technically an ablative absolute) does not alter the meaning of the main clause. Rather it simply states its purpose, cf Lund, N. (2003, January 6). Will Supreme Court Rule Correctly on 2nd Amendment? Human Events, 59(1), 18. Retrieved from [3] I assume you guys are working on a grammer section and not blogging. J8079s (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, prior to Heller, the US Courts consistently held that the dependent clause regarding the militia DID modify the main clause. Four justices of the Supreme Court still think this way, as did every President of the United States that weighed in on the issue in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. So grammarians, except for the most recent five years of American history, you are indeed right. I firmly believe this historical fact needs to be in this article and that removing all the legal history between 1791 and 2008 is not NPOV. I'm working on a new lead. See discussion above.GreekParadise (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New lede

As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history. pose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below. Proposed Long Lede The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Proposed Short Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]

In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…” added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

…firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.

I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:

• Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.

• Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.

I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your general inclination that the intro could stand to be revised along these lines, but I see some problems with your specific recommendations.

- "For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment"

-- This is hard to support. There wasn't much debate about the second amendment until the late 20th century. When George Washington commanded a federalized militia larger than any regiment he commanded during the war, to suppress the tax protest known as the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think there was much debate about what the 2nd amendment was for. In the Federalist, quelling insurrection (with extensive discussion of the shay's rebellion) was a key purpose envisioned for the militia.

- "From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds"

-- This seems easier to verify. The origin of gun control legislation in the US, for example, can be traced to that brief period of time known as the "wild west" http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

- "In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation"

-- I don't think this is exactly accurate. Heller added a new interpretation, and the court's opinion was clear that it did not mean to contravene prior interpretations.

Inijones (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede discussion revived from archive. Please do not archive until consensus is reached on lede

How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt

I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change the lede

If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.

On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV

The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean? Imprecise language should be removed. As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many. Plus there is no citation for generally accepted. Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it? You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course. So if there's no source, it has to go. You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced? Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise. You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article. My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem

This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php.

The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008.

Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well).

I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars.

But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth.

If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one.

The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions.

Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements. Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation. Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus. However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts." Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008." OK? (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008. Do you? According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls? In a poll of legal scholars? By US courts? It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point. But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller. Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment

The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed New Lead to Mention Prior Collective View as Well as Current Individual View

I have brought the prior discussion back from the archive so that it can be reviewed by anyone interested. There seems to be general consensus that a brief mention of the law on the Second Amendment in the 19th and 20th centuries should be mentioned in the lead and not only the post-Heller law since 2008.There also seems to be consensus that the New York Times front page, along with the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, are reliable sources. I therefore propose the following lead. If you disagree, please be specific about why. (I should also note that upon review of the archives, I have found dozens of editors have raised the same arguments I have more than a hundred times. It's time to put this difference of opinion to rest, even if it requires a RfC or mediation.) Thank you, Grahamboat, Celestra, Kvng, Izno and others for your suggestions. North8000, I realize you remain a major dissenter, and I respect that, but I have asked you for more than a month to provide a single source to suggest that the collective view was NOT the law prior to 2000 and you have yet to find a source contradicting the CRS, LOC, and NYT. Unless you find one, can you accept the lead?

Here's the proposed lead:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that states that 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 infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Before 2007, no law was ever struck down by a federal appeals court as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[1] In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled the Amendment restricted the federal government but did not affect state regulations on guns.[2] Prior to the 21st century, an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus held that the Second Amendment's prefatory militia clause delimited the scope of the right to bear arms to a collective right to serve in well-regulated state militias.[3]

Two recent landmark Supreme Court cases changed the prevailing view. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement became the first gun law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. [4] In Heller, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected to service in a militia, as long as that arm is used in ways the Court defined as traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession, ownership, sale, and use listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. [5] In a second landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments in addition to the federal government.[6]

Footnotes (obviously I'll clean these up prior to putting in article)

1 - Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2013. [4]

2 – Library of Congress, “United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court “ [5] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

3 - Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2013. [6] Constitutional Accountability Center, Where Will the Second Amendment Revolution Lead? [7] CRS Report for Congress, “District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment [8] Library of Congress, “United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court “ [9]

4 - Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423.ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6. ^ "held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms,"Scaros, Constantinos E. (2010). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 484. ISBN 978-0-7637-5811-0.

5 - "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)". p. 83.

6 - Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012.

GreekParadise (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This has many problems, the same raised by numerous folks the last time it was discussed, the discussion which you have now separated this from via selective resurrection. At the core of many of them is a creative "spin" version of the pre-Heller situation. Also I think that your description in relation to other editors is misleading. You are making it sound like those who gave you tips on how to make it slightly less bad are in support of your idea. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What I see as plainly obvious here is that North8000 seems to be advocating for his/her personal politics. The way around this tendency is to look to include a balance viewpoints seen in the reliable sources, including sources showing viewpoints that editors here might personally disagree with. Plainly, the vast majority of the history of existence of the Second Amendment, the collective viewpoint was dominant. Recently in 2008 for the first time, a limited form of individual viewpoint was added to the collective viewpoint by the SCOTUS. They were clear that the collective 'militia based' viewpoint remains to exist, and is augmented by the addition of an individual right component for lawful firearms for self defense within the home. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Quit the "advocating for his/her personal politics" crap! .....baseless personal attack, and missing wp:AGF by two levels. Not only not AGF'ing, but baselessly inventing bad faith that is contrary to the record in the talk page. There were an immense number of solid reasons why this is problematic. Please see the discussion that this has been detached from. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has become a mess and is difficult to follow. IMHO GreekParadise’s retrieval from the achieves was miss handled. Now we are forced to jump all over the place to see who said what and when they said it. GreekParadise’s latest proposed change is a far cry from his 2 February 2013 one. Now we’re back to two centuries of “almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus…collective right” – not close to being true. I see this as an attempt to spin the SCOTUS ruling as some radical departure from the understood meaning of the 2nd Am. Very POV. Grahamboat (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to some mention of prior Heller views on collective rights but not to present it in such a way that it was the only or “main” view. There is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view. None of the prior legal cases mentioned; attempted a comprehensive review of the meaning.Grahamboat (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the hard to follow. The bad archival happened when in the midst of our discussion, an editor decided to make it a 14 day archive. This caused a bot to archive the page at 14 days which made the entire debate difficult to reclaim. It is a mess. And if anyone knows how to reclaim the old material in a less convoluted way, by all means, do so. I also have asked the editor who did the 14-day retrieval and caused the problem on his/her talk page to bring back the 30 day archive. If anyone else knows how to do so, please do. (I do not.) But I strongly agree the quick archive harms our discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat, I started to do it the way we talked about. And then I went to the sources to document it. But the source (NYT) said "There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias." Have you read it? Other sources said there is not a single President prior to 2000 who supported an individual rights theory. In fact, if you've read these sources, you'd know that Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, and conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger all supported the collective view (as did almost everyone prior to about 20 years ago). So I can't write something contrary to all known sources. Grahamboat, you say "there is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view." If there's "plenty of evidence," you should be able to find dozens of reliable sources that say that. I would ask you to provide me with three. Or heck, for a start, even one. If it's true, by all means, let me see the sources! I'd love to evaluate it. In fact, I strongly invite you to do the research. And if you can find a good source for your claim, let's add it to the article! But if you can't find a single reliable source that disputes what I say, perhaps you will then see that my sources are true and your conjecture -- well-meaning though it is and polite as you've always been -- happens to be factually false. No matter how much you believe 2+2=5 and no matter how nice you are about it, it cannot be posted on wikipedia if reliable sources say it is false and no reliable source says it is true. So please provide me a reliable source for your claim and I'll evaluate it. If you cannot do so, please respectfully withdraw your claim. Incidentally, I cannot find a single President prior to 2000 with this view. Can you name one? I know you believe what you said to be true, Grahamboat, but do you have any EVIDENCE of it being true? You say there's plenty. Please post the links and let's evaluate them.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000, it is hard to assume good faith when you are not making any objections based on reliable sources. It is exceedingly unhelpful to claim the lead has "many" problems and is "spin." You have to name the problem. Name just one problem, in fact. Name one fact that is unproven. In fact, until you cite a source for your claims, you really should cease making any argument. An argument without a source is as meaningless as a guy insisting the earth is flat. It's just a waste of time. I'm looking for a consensus -- which is a give and take based on reliable sources. Honestly I don't want your personal opinion and it is irrelevant to wikipedia. With respect, you need to put up a source or withdraw your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone can back up their assertions with a reliable source or a wikipedia argument, I see no objections to making the change. There's no need to discuss this for another month or two. Unless someone provides a reliable source to dispute what I've written, a justified wikipedia argument, or an honest attempt at compromise based on factual sources rather than conjecture, I will make the change and if you dispute it, we will put up a POV tag and go to formal dispute resolution. But rest assured, the wikipedia editors that decide mediation don't care about your personal beliefs as to historical facts either. They will also want sources. So you might as well give me your sources now or an attempt at compromise. Let's work together. No one owns this article. We've gone round in circles for more than a month now. If I don't get a source or a justified-wikipedia objection within three more days, I will make the change. And if you disagree, North8000, let's go to dispute resolution.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the now-detached discussion, GreekParadise that is completely backwards. You are basically saying that that unless there is high grade sourcing that has addressed and refuted the particular creative spin that you are trying to put in that it should go in. This is exactly in direct violation of Wikipedia policies (starting with Wp:ver and wp:nor) and contrary to how wikipedia works. And that's just speaking for insertion into the article. Your proposed insertion onto the lead doubles that up with a whole second set of problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ver says be verified. Mine is. Yours isn't. VP:nor says no original research. I have not used original research. You have because you cannot source your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the best you can do, North8000, and you are, in effect, conceding you cannot find a single reliable source or valid wikipedia reason behind your objection, I will go ahead and make the change.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You are missing or evading the core point of both of those policies. Please see my previous post. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise forgive me for saying - but your replies “2+2=5” sound smart assed. I have no intention of searching for sources that I would never use in the article; but just to prove you wrong - http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/Congress.2a.pdf (see page 48). You are missing the point – just because you find a source for a POV slant doesn’t mean it should go into the lede. What you are attempting to do would diminish the importance of the SCOTUS opinion by introducing gun-control POV rhetoric. So you see, your suggestions are not only wrong they are POV and minuscule. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don’t reply to snide comments. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a version with more neutral wording based on the references called out above and the existing lead. If there are other references that have something to say about interpretation prior to Heller, list them and I'd be happy to incorporate:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that states that 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 infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on several occasions that the amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms considering the amendment to be, “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”[3]

In the 21st century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.[1][2] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

-—Kvng 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno about in the lead, but if the "missing point" (that previous statement was due to the status of incorporation in general, not just the 2A) I think it might be good material for the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So, no objection to my lead proposal? -—Kvng 21:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK with me. Grahamboat (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure yet. Does anybody know if this non-incorporation to restrict the states was in general for the amendments vs. specifically for the 2A? The wording here makes it sound as if it was specifically towards the 2A. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was specific to the 2nd. I pulled the quote from the LoC ref (link above) which I believe is talking about U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)...

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. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

-—Kvng 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So there are 2 main proposed changes in there. Addition of the middle paragraph and modification of the last paragraph. I think we should deal with them separately.

Regarding the new paragraph, I think that it is good informative material that should be added to the article. But if non-incorporation was the norm for amendments in general back then back then we should provide that context info, otherwise we are being misleading. IMHO putting previous non-incorporation in the lead is not a good choice, but if others want it I'm game to try it.

Regarding the last paragraph, I do not see a reason for the proposed changes. Either way they should be specifically discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added the middle paragraph to the lead. We can discuss adding additional context info to it but I've gone ahead and made the addition now because I think saying something that we now agree is factual about those 217 years is clearly an improvement over saying nothing. The changes I'm proposing in the last paragraph is adding "21st century" for continuity from the new middle paragraph and trimming it down a bit to better match the word count of the new middle paragraph. As per WP:RECENTISM, the first 217 years of history deserves at least as much attention as the past 5 years. -—Kvng 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to quote the amendment as you are doing in the first sentence. Please look at other amendment articles for examples. You are clearly doing this to put undue weight on "militia" and support your POV. If you'd like to add something about protecting militias as well, great, but the first sentence should say what the amendment functionally does, not simply quote it.Scott Illini (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I copied that first paragraph from GreekParadise's contribution above. It looked reasonable to me. I don't see how quoting the exact words in the amendment creates a POV issue. Which article specifically should I look to as an example? -—Kvng 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job Kvng – hopefully this keeps everybody happy. It is my understanding that incorporation happened with different amendments at various times according to need – technically 2010 for 2nd A. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The middle paragraph definitely takes care of the fact that the Second Amendment was not incorporated from 1875 to 2010, unlike other amendments that were incorporated at many different times (most much earlier). This deals with incorporation nicely. Thank you for that, Kvng. I agree with North to leave the last paragraph alone. Heller did not say that every individual has the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. It left in a large series of restrictions defined by the Court as reasonable that are listed in that paragraph. My only remaining concern is there is still the unresolved issue of the Miller case of 1939 and the collective view that was the exclusive view of the Courts for the rest of the 20th Century. I'm satisified to resolve that in one sentence. The sentence I quoted is almost directly taken from the New York Times article, but I'm happy to see what other editors pull from other sources.GreekParadise (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that recent change to the lede by Kvng is an improvement, good work! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise saying that no [gun] law was struck down has no meaning as there were very few cases heard and those that were did not involve individual right questions but rather restrictions to a right i.e. NFA or California’s assault weapon ban. Likewise saying that there was a complete scholarly and judicial consensus on a collective right interpretation is not correct as I’ve shown above – if fact 55 senators and 250 House members supported Heller before the case was heard. That is not to say there was not a collective vs individual controversy prior to Heller. It is a question of how to present it in a NPOV way. I suggest adding to the 2nd paragraph “the Heller case resolved a long standing conflict on whether the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as an individual right or a collective right - reserved for the military only”. This would introduce the historical aspects in a NPOV way. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to quibble with "resolved a long standing conflict on whether the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as an individual right or a collective right". There is very little evidence this is a long standing conflict. The whole 'individual rights' question first began to arise circa 1985 per Garry Wills. (For 190 years, essentially no one was arguing that the 2A protected an 'individual right'.) The first scholarly attention to the concept of an individual right was first published in the Tennessee Law Review spring 1995 edition. This Wiki article should not engage in revisionist history by pretending that the Individual rights concepts goes back further than the scholarly published evidence shows (which is 1995). SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I viewed what's in as a compromise. I think that making a larger deal out of the incorporation timing and having it in the lead is confusing and undue but went with it. Not that it can't evolve later, but not as a new starting point for a current discussion to possibly go farther undue. If it starts turning into that I would like to revert while we're discussing. Circling back, I think that any wording that tries to leave an impression that it was decided "collective" prior to Heller is misleading wp:OR at best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For balance

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment , one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

I think the bold section needs to be I the leed. "First gun laws struck down" has a place at District of Columbia v. Heller and maybe here but not in the leed. J8079s (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don’t know where the “1995” came from, but in 1982 a bipartisan subcommittee on the constitution of the committee on the judiciary United States Senate issued a report THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS whereby the individual right was championed as well as the collective right. So the issues were argued well before 1995. Cheers. `Grahamboat (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The 1995 came from date of the Tennessee Law Review, Spring edition, which is famous for being the first scholarly examination of the individual rights model. The 1982 date is also famous, though it was a political statement, not exactly scholarly; regardless, I grant that the 1982 hearing is important. Wills confirms the 1980s as being origin of the 'standard model' (aka individual rights) hypothesis. The whole 'individual rights' political movement roots probably can be traced to the Harlan Carter in 1972 leading up to the 'Cincinnati Revolt' of 1977. My point is that the 'individual rights' history of the Second Amendment (first political, followed with scholarly) isn't really that old. Definitely a latter half of the 20th Century phenomena. The first two centuries of the 2A had very little to do with the individual rights model. So, I argue that this 2A article should try to take a 'big picture' viewpoint and fairly depict the 2A as it evolved over time. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SaltyBoatr for sourcing your statement. Unless and until others opposing the view of these reliable sources also source their claims, the way SaltyBoatr and I have, they have NO validity. Any unsourced claims are wp:OR and we are required by wikipedia to ignore them. For example, Grahamboat, you made a claim that "There is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view." Do you have any evidence that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, or Clinton ever supported this view? You have not presented any. You can't say, "It's as I've shown above" when all you've shown above is your own say so. I can't accept it as a valid statement (without proof) when you refuse to present any source whatsoever. This is not "being disrespectful." It is wikipedia policy. I'm quite confident that no reliable source for your statement exists, but if you believe you have a reliable source for your statement, you should show it to us so we can evaluate it or respectfully withdraw your statement as inaccurate. Similarly, no one in this entire long discussion on this talk page has ever backed up any claims that individual rights was supported by any court or any President prior to 2000. Rather than be a long-standing conflict, my sources show that the collective view was accepted by all US courts and the vast majority of scholars until the Emerson case in the 21st century. Since we have the sources -- and those who disagree with us do not, and since no sources = no valid argument, that means that there is NO disagreement whatsoever that the collective view predominated prior to Emerson and Heller. Which, after all, is what the New York Times and the Congressional Research service both say. (unsigned: 13:59, 26 February 2013 GreekParadise )

You are arguing to put in something with a particular "spin" which attempts to paint lack of any review of collective vs. individual back when it was moot as a finding towards 'collective". Grahamboat, on the talk page, said that the opposite is the case. Asking for proof of the opposite statement is off the main topic. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000 has had ample time to source his complaint and has failed to do so. (And frankly, it appears that he is arguing his personal political opinion.) It is well sourced that the dominant view prior to Heller was a militia based viewpoint, sometimes called the 'collective' viewpoint. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds like a blog but is whole discussion is turning into one. Speaking of revisionism, there is a dwindling group gun-control fanatics trying to spin history to imply that you had to belong to the military in order to have an individual right to own fire arms. The truth is America has a 400 year, mostly unchallenged, record of individual firearm ownership. It was not until 1939 that some sensible restrictions came about starting with limitations on machine gun ownership (NFA) progressing to the more questionable “so-called” assault rifle bans. Some liberal enclaves went as far as banning handguns altogether. The tactics of the Heller deniers are to take the scant gun law cases and spin their outcomes to imply that the Heller decision was outside mainstream thinking. Starting in the early 1980’s there was a shift back towards an individual right meaning of the 2nd AM. Today it is almost universal – only seven states are not considered “shall issue” on CCW permits. Returning to the issue at hand, any attempt to politically spin the individual right meaning of the 2nd AM to be outside mainstream thinking is POV. The blogging has taken us off point. The question is with all the recent changes to the lead can we all accept the version 13:57, 27 February 2013‎ Inijones? I’m OK with it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I feel compelled to identify the elephant in the room here. This article seems dominated by a small group of editors with a political agenda, towards the 'individual rights' viewpoint. While since 2008, the 'individual' viewpoint has been added; it is incorrect to downplay the collective viewpoint that existed for 220 years of 2A history, from 1787-2007. Worse, in 2008 the individual viewpoint was first recognized as augmenting the collective viewpoint; and it did not replace it. Yet, the article gets this wrong; due to agenda pushing by a small energetic group of politically motivated editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is generally meant by the collective view is that the only right is collective, i.e. that there is no individual right. So, determining / confirming an individual right does negate the most common meaning of collective view. I 'spose there could be other meanings of collective which do not conflict with individual right.....for example that the collective right also exists, but I think that that is taken as a given rather than being just a view. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Scalia in Heller wrote: "These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia". So, it is pretty clear with the words "not limited to" that he views the 2A as pertaining to both a collective 'bear arms in a militia' meaning and also it includes a limited self-defensive meaning, such as with lawful guns inside the home. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree/ that is true but, per my previous post, is an unusual (= not the usual) meaning of collective right which was the assertion that it was only a collective right. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only guess what you are reading when you make the claim 'unusual'. My guess is that it is seen in the gun blogs? We really should put our blinders on and not be letting unreliable sources influence us here in any way. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, remember AGF and civility. You should not accuse editors of knowingly using unreliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Give him a chance to answer my question before you jump down my throat with your accusation. I think my guess is probably accurate. On what basis is he claiming 'unusual'? Certainly, he did not state. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, I think that it is not even controversial:

1. "Collective right" generally refers to the belief or opinion that the "only" right is collective, so the common meaning of "collective right" is "there is no individual right".
2. The instance that you just pointed to refers to having a collective right and an individual right co-existing.

And so what I was saying that #1 is the common meaning, and that the #2 meaning is clearly different than #1. Is there anything there that you even disagree with? To tell you the truth I thought that I was just pointing out something that you would agree with, and certainly not something so controversial that you would launch in such a nasty rant over. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying 'everybody knows it' is not how to source a claim on Wikipedia. "nasty rant" you say? So much for your admonition to be civil. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely mist-sating what I said so we're not having a real discussion. But what would you call the meaning in what you cited? Where it says that both collective and individual right exist. Would you call that the usual or unusual meaning of "collective right"? North8000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually did address your questions see above post dated 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC). Scalia was very clear that the prior SCOTUS rulings, especially Miller, (though also Cruikshank, and Presser) which were militia based rights questions; were not invalidated by Heller. The Heller ruling augmented the prior rulings with its new individual right component to the Second Amendment. If your hang up is the use of the word 'collective', I could understand that. Perhaps calling it 'militia based' and 'self defense based' rights might work for you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, you are essentially changing the conversation with each thread to where I don't even know what your question or assertion is. What I thought it was about is this:

1. You pointed out where they said that a collective right exists in addition to and individual right.
2. I agreed and noted that example is using an unusual meaning of the word "collective". And gave the details of that.
3. I don't even know what you are asserting or disputing. I asked two questions which would clarify what you are asserting or disputing, and you didn't answer either of them.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the top of the thread. I am attempting to point out the elephant in the room here. The editing of this article has been dominated by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors. Skewed treatment of the 'collective viewpoint' in the article is one example of this. (Among many.) In light of the Heller reference I cited above, the article incorrectly describes the collective model using 'past tense' language; as Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint. Heller did not invalidate the militia 'collective' viewpoint seen in Miller as the past tense wording in the article implies. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I understand where you are coming from. If you want to end thread now, that's cool. If you want to discuss to sort it out a bit more, then let me ask whether or not you agree with this statement:

On 2A topics, "collective right" view usually refers to a view that there there is only a collective right, and that there is not an individual right.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. Regardless, talk pages on Wikipedia are not places to discuss personal opinion in any case. My beef is that the article has been skewed by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors who have inserted their personalpolitical bias, one good example being the incorrect use of 'past tense' to describe of the militia based component of the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused by your answer but thanks for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the way SaltyBoatr's observation about how "Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint" connects to his/her observation about "the incorrect use of 'past tense'" is rhetorical.

Past tense implies that one interpretation is no longer valid; Heller implies that a new interpretation was added to past interpretations, though this should not be taken to mean that one interpretation amputated the previous. In Heller, the majority opinion states: "Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47." The decision also states: "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." So just as there are problems with characterizing Heller as a departure from precedent, there are problems with characterizing the effect of Heller as invalidating the previous state of affairs.

Observations about rhetoric are not insignificant, as rhetoric is one of the classical arts of persuasion, and and analysis of rhetorical terms used in the article is an important part of maintaining as much of a NPOV as possible. That is, to the greatest extent possible, this article should be expository, not persuasive per se. Inijones (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Obscuring the common meaning of the "collective right" theory

The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT:

1. that a collective right exists, it IS:
2. the now-obsolete view that ONLY a collective right exists.

We may be seeing a tactic to confuse the two, to use the obvious existence of #1 to try to try to put in wording that implies that the assertions in #2 did not get authoritatively rebuked. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a malicious tactic, and wouldn't read any bad faith into any confusion, but I do think that the meaning of these terms and the relative importance of these nuances could be discussed further and clarified. I think on certain points, there are two parties here talking past each other. I think people sometimes use words that imply certain things to certain audiences, even if they don't mean to use those words as shorthand for something else.

129.89.130.117 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think that the clarification of #1 and #2 is still useful....leaving out the "now obsolete" which some folks would not agree on, it is:

The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT:

1. that a collective right exists, it IS:
2. the view that ONLY a collective right exists.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The exclusive nature of the "only" and emotional connotations of "now-obsolete" are not something I personally have a strong view on. I hope other editors chime in here. In terms of any possible subtext to discussions on these points, I would think most editors here who support gun control would also support the freedom to hunt or defend a home, and would readily acknowledge that there is an individual right to bear arms.

In terms of how you're phrasing the "collective rights" interpretation, I think it might parse easier phrased in the positive, rather than by negation (better not to define it in terms of what it isn't). "Obsolete" sounds like it carries negative emotional connotations; maybe phrase positively as "superseding interpretation" or "additional interpretation" or "amended interpretation" or something like that.

What I think is a likely point of contention along these lines is where this right comes from and how it came about. I think, as noted elsewhere, conversations about this can quickly devolve into emotional attempts to re-litigate the last few years of case law, either to weaken one position, or to make another appear stronger. Inijones (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Any reference to various interpretations of the Second Amendment should be objective, rather than subjective. This means describing any interpretation without showing it in a positive or negative light. It doesn't mean not referring to Supreme Court decisions. It certainly means not using words like "obsolete," as such wording is clearly POV. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I specifically rewrote it to remove the "now-obsolete". And my post has a very narrow intention......just to point out the common meaning of one term (and "only" is central to that) and just to help unscramble talk page discussions revolving around the term, not as proposed article content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Tenth Circuit decision

The case is Peterson v. Martinez (here's the decision) and it conflicts with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Moore v. Madigan. It should be added to the list of Court of Appeals decision in the article. I would do it myself, but am very busy at the moment. I'll be available again on Friday. SMP0328. (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I read about 1/2 of it. At first glance I wouldn't say that it conflicts with Moore vs. Madigan. Looks like the Colorado said that a categorical concealed carry right does not exist; i.e state can place conditions, including that the state can require out of state persons to have the permit from their home state. Moore Madigan I believe ruled that the state does have to allow but can place conditions. Seems like the same end.......just a quick thought from reading only half of it. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this detailed coverage of CCW weapons politics is off topic in this article, and should be spun off into a separate article with a cursory 'see also' mention here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Inijones (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually other than Heller and McDonald, practically every 2A-related court case is about some other specialized topic. So then the question becomes what to include here? I think that as a starting point all US Supreme Court cases related to 2A are a logical start. Beyond that.....what would be a criteria for inclusion of a court case in this article? North8000 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be "how much detail" and how to determine which details are relevant. If there were a list with summary statements borrowed from the respective articles, that might be reasonable. But I think SaltyBoatr is right to point out that these types of edits can quickly devolve into discussions of the politics surrounding the cases, which would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Inijones (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Salty was referring to when they said "this detailed coverage of CCW weapons politics"......I haven't seen anything like that in the article or even on the talk page. And I don't think that anybody is proposing that. If there is a content question it's whether or not to include that case in the article. I think I'd have to temporarily abstain on that question as I do not know how high up that court is. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

missing comma

A comma is missing from the text of the second amendment. There should be a comma after "a well regulated militia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgolikov (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The text you are referring to apparently didn't have a comma. I don't have the cited book, but see this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Lead re Miller

Prior to my most recent change, the lead was inaccurate. It formerly stated that the McDonald (2010) case was the first Supreme Court case since the 1939 case of Miller (whose significance is not described) to rule on the Second Amendment. That's not true. Heller (2008) was the first case since Miller. I have revised the lead to explain the significance of Miller -- the only Supreme Court case in the entire 20th Century on the Second Amendment -- which is that it ushered in the collective view throughout all US Federal Courts for the remainder of the 20th Century. I have used direct quotations to do this, both from Miller and the Congressional Research Service. I have taken the incorporation sentence and placed it in its proper place, in the third paragraph following the McDonald case where it happened, rather than out of context in the second paragraph (19th and 20th Centuries) where it does not belong.GreekParadise (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise and others contend that since no laws were overturned somehow equates to proof that a military only right was the mainstream view for 2 centuries. IMHO the laws themselves confirm an individual right sentiment. Here is a brief (by no means complete) summery of the main federal laws: 1. NFA (1934) machineguns must be registered and $200 stamp purchased. 2. GCA (1968) must be over 18 with no criminal, drug, dishonorable discharge, or mental health issues. 3. FOPA (1986) no machinegun purchases on guns not registered by 1986. 4. Brady Bill (1993) handguns purchases must pass a background check for GCA issues. 5. Assault Weapon Ban (1994) expiring (2004) banned certain “assault looking” semi-automatic rifles. As long as a person was compliant with the above laws, that person was deemed to have an individual right to keep and bear a firearm without having any military connection.

One needs to look no further than the Heller majority opinion to repudiate the claims of the sources used on this talk page:

Claim 1. Prior to the 21st century, an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus held… to a collective right to serve in well-regulated state militias.

Claim 2. There is very little evidence this is a long standing conflict.

Excerpts from the opinion: Examining the early scholars, Tucker, Rawes, and Story the court found that “all three understood it [2A] to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service”. "We have found only one early 19th-century commentator who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia—and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary... It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.” ”Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” “The most famous was the judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who wrote ‘Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms… It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent’". “All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have found concurred with Cooley”. “The limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.” “Presser v. Illinois, does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment”. “Miller [case] stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons… We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens.”

From the above we can see that not only was there a long standing conflict, but for the most part the individual right was the prevailing view for most of this country’s history.

There was no consensus or justification for the Miller expansion in lede. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Grahamboat, with a couple of notes. GreekParadise is trying put creative spin text that the pre-Heller view was "collective only". One of Grahamboat's points was that the opposite is more likely. IMHO Grahamboat is absolutely correct on that point, but after seeing the course of previous discussions, I wanted to point out that such an argument is not required to keep/leave out the "creative spin" version, and doubly so from the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat's only authority is Heller itself. It's kind of like saying that prior to Brown v. Board of Education, the 14th Amendment never allowed segregated schools and then citing Brown as a source. Grahamboat, you have to find pre-Heller authority to determine what the law was pre-Heller. The CRS article, printed on the eve of Heller, is precisely that perfect source. Now the lead is gobbledygook, mixing 19th and 20th Century authority with 21st Century authority. I will strive to fix it back. But if we cannot resolve this, we should go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On your first point, no authority is needed to keep out the creative characterization that you have been seeking to put in; the reverse is true...such is needed to even put it into the article much less the lead. The recent big change (by Inijones) in the lead took if farther in the direction that you prefer (so now it's a compromise on top of a compromise, both towards the direction that you prefer....I think it is a bit of an overreach but did not revert), so I am surprised that you did not like the change. If it is contested we should revert it, not add something else. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Either we state Miller and Heller (giving both sides of the controversy both pre-2008 and post-2008), just as we have already agreed on stating the law pre-McDonald and post-McDonald -- or we remove all Supreme Court cases from the lead and leave the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the body of the article. This prevents WP:RECENTISM and WP:POV. I prefer to state both sides -- both the interpretation of the past that has existed for generations and the recent interpretation of the last few years. But I'd rather have no judicial interpretation in the lead than a one-sided article that suggests that there was never any judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment prior to 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As written now, the article has a nice balance. The first paragraph states the Amendment. The next paragraph gives the 19th and 20th Century judicial interpretation. The third paragraph describes how scholars in the latter 20th Century began to challenge that judicial interpretation. And the fourth paragraph gives the modern Heller/McDonald view, favoring the individual over the collective model. It shows both sides with a clear, chronological road from the past interpretation to the present interpretation. It includes all of the edits editors have put in from both sides of the POV and is indisputably accurate. I really hope you will let this latest edit be.GreekParadise (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Stating both opinions is fine, maybe even in the lead. Trying to spin/synthesize what the courts said is not. The massive burst of changes by two folks made a mess out of the lead. I reverted, please get consensus in talk first. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with North8000. GreekParadise – Your so called “balance” was nothing more than spinning and distorting cases and opinions in an attempt to characterize 2A as having a collective view for 2 centuries. Trolling the history pages to find other editors to agree with you is tantamount to Canvassing and is frowned upon on Wikipedia.Grahamboat (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My balance is backed up by reliable sources quoted verbatim. It is not spin or distortion to quote verbatim reliable sources like the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress. It is spin to remove all history prior to 2008 without any reliable source to back up your actions. Please don't just throw away hard work. If there's a particular sentence you don't like, please say why it should be excluded. Or we can do the opposite and start with the first paragraph and you can justify any addition you want to make. It however can never be wikipedia consensus to give just one side of a controversy that violates WP:IRS, WP:NOR, WP:Recentism, and WP:NPOV I will revert.GreekParadise (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You had no consensus to make your changes.Grahamboat (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it extremely important to fairly respect the spectrum of Supreme Court evolution of viewpoint in this article. Miller, and its militia viewpoint was the dominant viewpoint for many decades, until just recently when Heller added an individual component to the Miller militia component. Heller did not void or negate Miller, it merely added to Miller. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise, there is an immense amount of problems with what you are trying to war into the lead. Here are the first few:

• Warring in controversial changes which not only have no consensus, but fall miles short of that.
• The quote on Miller is deceptive, taken out of context. It was saying that the 2A does not grant a categorical right that rules out any restrictions (such as those on the particular weapon which was the subject of the ruling.)
• This is not about views on the 2A, it is about trying to force in synthesized claims about what the legal standing was. So implying that this is about merely trying to include the collective right view is not germane and misleading. I'm sure folks would be open to discussion on that; I know I would.
• There is not rule that says that every view has to be prominently in the lead. There were those that said that the amendment that gave women the right to vote is invalid. Do you see that in the lead there?
• Taking both the amendment itself and what it says out of the first paragraph.
• You are warring in a whole pile of stuff, not just any item of asserted merit. Items can be individually discussed for potential inclusion.

Again, that's just for a start. The lead needs to go back to its last stable form before it got scrambled up, and then that pile of changes need to get discussed in order to go in. Not just pile them all in and then discuss. It's BRD, not BD. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on and propose something to include the collective right view. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How's this? (I copied it from the body of the article):

In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).

North8000 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems balanced to me. SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

seems undue to me, elevating a particular historical view above all other views. It is better to let the later subsections flesh out all the views. Yaf (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)