Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Case law section causes neutrality skew

I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment. I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists (primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too), I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

'Bliss v. Commonwealth' did not pertain to the 2A, see my entry below. In my opinion, state case-law that makes no mention of the 2A, should not be included in this 2A article, it only serves to confuse. (Truwik (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

There is no neutrality bias in the present article. The inclusion of interpretations of the Second Amendment occurring in state courts is entirely appropriate in an article on the Second Amendment, under a section detailing an historical treatment of interpretations of the 2A. This content also has nothing to do with being "pro-gun"; besides, the Arkansas Buzzard case can hardly be called a "pro-gun" position, being that it was the first militia-based interpretation of the 2A in the United States. Objecting to cited content, contrary to your independent Original Research, is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you have material you feel is needed (to be added, for balance), then please add it, all while providing cites with reliable and verifiable sources, of course. The absence of content is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias. Rather, it is an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia! Yaf (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yafs claim above: "inclusion of the Second Amendment occurring in the state courts" is nonsensical. The 2A is federal, and the state courts were ruling on state constitutions, not the federal constitution. There has probably been 100,000 words spent on this topic already, check the talk archive. "Contribute to Wikipedia!" is laughable in light of Yaf's edit history here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The state courts were ruling on interpretations of the 2A, per the cites in the article. There is no nonsense here, except for the claim that such interpretations is somehow "nonsensical". Again, the problem appears to be with one editor's opinions that are contrary to the Heller decision from the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you promise not to edit war? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, such a question as this is nonsensical, however. Edit warring is entirely inappropriate within the Wikipedia community. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr writes:
"I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment."
It is fact that some state courts discussed the Second Amendment.
"I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists."
It's not a "point of view." It's a fact.
"(primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too)"
Whether "anti-gun" blogs choose to ignore it, doesn't mean the presentation of such material (if it is presented objectively) is biased.
"I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV."
So basically you're expressing a desire to eliminate material that favors one side because another side ignores it.Eaglecloud (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, without discussion, has reverted[1] this section again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like the deletion of Anti-Federalist quotes from the article, without discussion, over objections? Is the pot calling snow black again?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with respect to having the section removed in the first place! There was certainly no consensus on its removal. (And Buzzard still needs work) Eaglecloud (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

State court decisions over gun rights have nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A states the right "shall not be infringed" but that does not mean the right emanates from there. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states: "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." "Its powers" refers to the powers just delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, and "restrictive clauses" refers to the Bill of Rights. Thus, Congress was not to use its powers to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right, including those not mentioned. Truwik (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822), Bliss was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon (a sword in a cane), in violation of Kentucky state law enacted to: "prevent persons in the commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." Bliss argued that law violated the Ky. Constitution. The Ky. Supreme Court agreed and held that state law void. No mention was made of the 2A in the U.S. Const. In State v. Buzzard (1842), Arkansas had a similar law against concealed weapons, for which Buzzard was indicted. Buzzard argued that state law violated the 2A of the U.S. Const. The Ark. Supreme Court disagreed and upheld their state law stating it is: "in no wise repugnant either to the Const. of the U.S. or the Const. of this State." That should not be construed as incorporating the 2A, Buzzard simply misapplied it. (Truwik (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

In the Antebellum Section (Bliss v. Commonwealth), the statement: "This case has been described as about 'a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment,'" which cited Bliss as authority for it, is pure Libel. Mr. Stanley Musk, who made that statement in his "Gun Control Legislation: Valid And Necessary" pesentation before Congress, said that while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. So-violating that oath is Perjury. It's serious business to deliberately misrepresent a state's supreme court judgement, and anyone who repeats that untruth becomes an accessory. Thus, Bliss v. Commonwealth must be removed from the Second Amendment Article, Mr. Musk is not God. (Truwik (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Following comment seems wrong

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

I believe that under the Articles of Confederation the states were considered "nations" and that the Articles of Confederation was considered a sort of "super treaty". A current example would be Europe and the gradual erosion of state powers in favor of the EU or "European Union".

Back then the states were New York, Virginia, Massachusetts and the rest, while currently the "states" are Germany, France, Italy and the rest. At some point the various states ceased to be considered separate nations, but vestiges of that nationhood still remain. For instance I recently read an article about a number of the states individually entered students into inter-NATIONAL education competitions. Their students were not part of the "United States" team.

The following from the Massachusetts Constitution support the notion that at the time, the states considered themselves "SOVEREIGN" nations", following their own course, except for their obligations to the "super treaty" organization known as the "United States". My opinion is that the states officially lost their "nationhood" as a result of the Civil War.

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

as to when the above Article was written, the following describes the timing of passage of the Constitution of Massachusetts.

On the 11th of November the Convention adjourned, to meet at the Representatives’ Chamber, in Boston, January 5th, 1780. On the 2d of March, of the same year, a form of Constitution having been agreed upon, a Resolve was passed by which the same was submitted to the people, and the Convention adjourned to meet at the Brattle Street Church, in Boston, June the 7th. At that time and place the Convention again met, and appointed a Committee to examine the returns of votes from the several towns. On the 14th of June the Committee reported, and on the 15th the Convention resolved, “That the people of the State of Massachusetts Bay have accepted the Constitution as it stands, in the printed form submitted to their revision.” A Resolve providing for carrying the new Constitution into effect was passed; and the Convention then, on the 16th of June, 1780, was finally dissolved. 4.154.234.114 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The United States has been considered a nation at least since the A of C. Back then, the country was a confederation, while it's now a federation. U.S. states were not, technically at least, independent countries under the A of C. This article shouldn't get into a discussion regarding the de facto status of the states under the A of C. SMP0328. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread Article IV of the Constitution of Massachusetts above, written in the time period of the sentence in question,, and let me know if you missed one or more of the words "free" "sovereign" and "independent".4.154.235.250 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Henry referring to Virginia as a "country" during the debates on the Constitution

But now when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national. The honorable member James Madison was pleased to say, that the sword and purse included every thing of consequence. And shall we trust them out of our hands without checks and barriers? The sword and purse are essentially necessary for government every essential requisite must be in congress. Where are the purse and sword of Virginia? They must go to congress. What is become of our country? The Virginian government is but a name. It clearly results from his last argument that we are to be consolidated.4.154.235.250 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to do an edit when the article protection comes off. 4.156.78.7 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

or, you could open an account, and edit now. Anastrophe (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

and it would promptly be closed because I firmly believe in calling an idiot an idiot. 4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Following still needs fixing from

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

to something like

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a federation of sovereign, independent states under the Articles of Confederation.4.154.254.139 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this wording?

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"loose alliance" goes too far in the opposite direction. Close alliance is better. Also I think either "sovereign" or independent" should be included for clarity

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a close alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation4.154.236.158 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording change has been made. SMP0328. (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The expression "United States" simply means the States that united. Art. VI, Sec. 3 of the US Const. reads: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." The 'United States' and the several 'States' are two separate things. Each sovereign State has a Republican form of government, a constitution that created it, with Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. These States created the government of the United States and delegated certain powers to it in Art. I, Sec. 8, to settle interstate conflicts and international conflicts. Beyond that the federal government has no power. The Bill of Rights was added to assure states that their new creature would not exercise any power over rights. The Bill of Rights is a Bill of Don'ts. The 2A's 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government, that's whatCruikshank declared in 1875, and what Heller reaffirmed in 2008. (Truwik (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Heller only listed the historical interpretations of the 2A. There was no "reaffirmed" aspect to it with regards to incorporation, only an historical accounting of past decisions, along with dicta that, at the time of Cruikshank, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment were both not incorporated against the states. Since then, the SCOTUS has ruled on incorporation of the 1st Amendment, but not on the 2A. It is incorrect to say Heller reaffirmed non-incorporation amd that 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government; incorporation was not on the table in Heller. Yaf (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heller reaffirmed (in footnote 23)"that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." By that, the Court meant that the 2A's restrictive purpose 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government. The Court simply stated that to-date, the 2A had not been incorporated. Yaf's comment is self-contradictory, if 'incorporation was not on the table in Heller, then the 2A has no application within the states. (Truwik (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

The issue of incorporation was not before the Supreme Court, because no State or local government was a party to the case. The Opinion of the Court was only noting that Heller was not changing the Second Amendment's status regarding State and local governments. SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. We agree the 2A hasn't been 'incorporated' but apparently have different views as to what that means. The 2A doesn't guarantee the right, it just prohibits the federal government from infringing on it. If a citizen of a state has been denied the right to keep and bear arms, contrary to what that state law protects, then such citizens must file suit in federal court under the 14A, claiming that he had been denied due process of law. In Cruikshank two blacks had been denied the right by a mob of whites, but no claim was made under the 14A, and the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Even if the blacks had done so, that wouldn't have changed the status of the 2A. It would have just required that state to apply its laws equally. That is, the Cruikshank crime was a state-law violation. (Truwik (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

To be "reaffirmed" the decision has to be "reexamined". No such "reexamination" took place in Heller. Because no "reexaminaton" took pace the prior decision "stands". Citing a prior decision is not the same as "reaffiming" that decision. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, but that's incorrect. The Heller Court did re-examine their preceding decisions. In footnote 23, after re-examining Cruikshank, the Court said: "Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S.252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas 153 U.S. 535, 528 (1894) re-affirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." Per Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 're-affirm' means: "to re-validate or re-confirm; to restate positively." Thus the 2A's 'shall not be infringed' applies only to federal law. (Truwik (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

NPOV problems?

These pro-gun POV push problems should be reworded using neutral terms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph, it has four footnotes, and all four point to cherry picked quotes directly from Heller giving focus to pro-gun talking points. This is WP:SYN. The 2A is much more than these four pro-gun snippets found in Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With the intention of WP:Bold I just floated as a trial balloon a go back to a relatively stable version of the introduction from earlier this year, updated to include mention of Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording of the revised Introduction. For example, the revised wording had referred to the Second Amendment as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. It includes references to Heller and Cruikshank, so readers will know where the amendment stands legally. I find the revised Introduction to be acceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this amendment is part of the story... but now the lead only addresses the controversy. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When I check expert opinion, I see that there is a consensus that what lies in the future, after Heller, is years of litigation to settle the confusion. There is mostly controversy in this story. See the Wilkerson article in the Virginia Law Review[2] and George Will's opinion piece "Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. ... Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right.". Not to mention the unsettled question of Incorporation. The introduction giving attention to the controversy about the 2A is apropos, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for the intro to bring up the controversy, but the amendment itself should factor more prominently. The current lead would be much more appropriate for an article on Politics of the second amendment or something. This article (and its lead), however, should focus on the amendment itself, of which the controversy is just one part. These were some awfully controversial edits, and I don't see that any consensus was reached as to their content (and one judge does not make a consensus, either). Please revert your edits so that we can work on revisions here on the talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reversion, simply propose an Introduction. The article is in flux, so it won't matter what the Introduction says currently. There's enough tags on this article that nobody will rely on it for anything. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that SaltyBoatr has inserted an NPOV tagline. What are the issues remaining with the article to merit this tagline? The ablative absolute and prefatory clause discussion has been added. Yaf (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of NPOV problems in the talk page above, with issues still unresolved. We also would benefit from a discussion to establish a baseline of what is the neutrality balance point should be. We also need to re-confirm that the proper balance point is that found in the balance of the reliable sourcing, not that of the personal opinions of the interested wiki-editors. This is such a tricky proposition because so much is written from an advocacy position, especially that published and selectively re-published online. I suggest that we look to a neutral scholar as a model for the 'middle' neutrality tone, and Saul Cornell comes to mind as being able to fairly describe both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell is not the paragon of evenhandedness, leaning rather severely toward the direction that you have typically advocated, to the exclusion of other points of view. This is not the neutral balance point for the article, although it probably seems that way to you. The article as presently written is probably about as neutrally written as it can be, with what is now more of a collective rights flavor that what it had a few months ago, contrary even to what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller, and contrary even to Cornell's "civic right" tone, which I have tried to incorporate as well. The 9th Circuit Court tone that now permeates the article is not the neutral balance point, but it has been skewed that way to try and reach wording that can be lived with by all active editors, such that the POV tagline could be removed, amd such that the article includes all major points of view, whether totally current or not, as judged against current judicial rulings. Skewing the wording of the article further, in an anti-rights direction, to the now largely-abandoned collective interpretation, while pushing an anti-rights agenda more strongly, would mean the article would definitely become perpetually tagged with POV tagline warnings by editors who see this differently than you do. That should not be our goal. The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with, without need of POV tagline warnings, rather than to a "balance point" that is a collection of talking points of Paul Helmke or Chris Cox. Yaf (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf asserts: "The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with". No, this is not negotiable. Re-read WP:NPOV. The goal is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It has nothing to do with "what we can live with" or what we find to be personally acceptable.

Therefore, I ask: Please show an example of some reliable sourcing that is written neutrally. I pointed to the work of Saul Cornell. Yaf found that inappropriate. Yaf, please suggest (if you can) an alternate reliable source which you see as written neutrally. I would like to see an example in the reliable sourcing of what you view as neutral, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Then by virtue that "Of the approximately forty scholarly articles published in legal journals between 1983 and 1998, the vast majority have tended to take an individual rights position on the Second Amendment.[42]", then we should scrub the collective rights viewpoint further from the article, to reflect the prominence of both viewpoints. I can do this. Thanks for pointing out that the balance point for the article should not be arrived at by reaching a balance point that active editors can "live with" reflecting the prominence of viewpoints that they have found and documented, but rather by a preponderance of the published sources. By the cited NPOV policy, then, editors should therefore also scrub the now abandoned ablative absolute interpretation, as well, from the article as it is not a prevalent viewpoint, either, in these same scholarly articles, but has become an extreme minority viewpoint. Sounds like we have reached an agreement by which we can fix the NPOV problems that are remaining. Looks clear to me what needs to be done to get this article back into Good Article status, where it was before we added all the collective rights minority viewpoints. Thanks! Yaf (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between academic history and law journal history. Both should be covered in the article, but the wording must be neutral and reflect the criticisms that the law office history has been revisionist and adversarial. See Rakove[3] and Cornell and the Kyvig paper[4]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These are only two articles, reflecting a minority viewpoint among the preponderance of published papers, that by the NPOV policy you cited earlier, should not be given prominence beyond the majority of the 40 articles. A minor mention of their points of view would be all that would be consistent with the NPOV policy you cited in covering these points. Yaf (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which 40 articles? Be specific please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced that this article will always have a neutrality tag on it. SaltyBoatr seems to have an ever growing list of grievances. I just don't see a time in which he will accept this article as being neutral, unless we allow him to have complete control of it. This is not meant to be insulting; just an observation. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, SMP0328 focuses on my personal character. Stop. Can you point to an example in the reliable sourcing which is neutrally written, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Salty Boatr objects to the neutrality of the people who wanted the protection included in the Second Amendment, the people that defend the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. Doesn't sound as ALL neutral to me!4.154.239.28 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This incessant series of anonymous IP attacks on my character is just wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No neutrality tag will be needed shortly, once the minority viewpoints regarding collective rights are scrubbed to reflect the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources. SB has pointed the way for us to re-achieve Good Article status. Yaf (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice, Yaf did not answer my request to point to an example reliable source that fairly describes both points of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this. Yaf, can you please point to an example of an reliable source that sets a neutrality tone which you find acceptable? This would be helpful in order for us to better communicate during our discussion of our disagreement of the correct neutrality balance. Other editors too, please discuss examples of properly weighted neutrality found in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Here is the Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Hopefully this helps. SMP0328. (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is helpful. I also think this advice given in WP:NPOVT is helpful:

The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have.

This is the reason that I am asking for dialogue about "evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are". Discussion please. I suggest that the history professor Saul Cornell has fairly described both sides of the points of view, and point to that as an example of fair 'balance point'. Is there agreement that Professor Cornell gives a fair neutrality balance? If not, suggest some other expert who does? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bodenhamer writes[5] of the topic neutrally. Also, Nelson Lund[6]. Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of systemic POV problems are no longer valid, as the neutral point of view now permeates the article with the many edits that editors have made. It is therefore not proper to identify the whole article as having a POV problem when it does not. Only individual sections, at most, should be tagged at this point, should any perceptions of POV problems remain. Otherwise, it is impossible to fix the parts of the whole where "problems" may remain. Have removed the POV tag on the entire article. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

This is growing tiresome, when I try to enter dialog about the POV problem I get stonewalled. Then Yaf, for the sixth time, simply removes the POV tag instead. Let me try to summarize the POV problems I see as needing fixing.

1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.

2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.

3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.

4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.

5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.

6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)

7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[7], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.

8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the POV tag to alert readers that this issue is being discussed here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. When asked for specifics, all that gets mentioned in return are claims of systemic "pro-gun" bias, with repeated claims of "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that, again and again and again and again and again. This after the earlier identified "problems" with "ablative absolute" and prefatory clause discussions were all fixed. I find it hard to believe that the section of the article in the intro and in the next section regarding the statement of the two versions of the Amendment are together somehow permeated with "systemic pro-gun bias". Yet, as long as the article remains with a claim of systemic bias by just one editor, with no indications of specifics to fix, and with the one dissenting editor claiming every edit made other than by him is somehow "pro-gun", it is impossible to fix the non-existent "problems". Hoplophobia is what is apparently preventing the improvement of this article. I think the earlier comment that this article can never achieve NPOV, without a POV tagline, due to one editor, only, is likely accurately "on-the-mark". Attempts at 3rd Opinion have failed. Informal and formal mediation have failed. All because of one editor. Perhaps it is time to go back to ArbCom, what with the ArbCom members having changed. (The mediator of the formal mediation, who previously recommended the old ArbCom members take this case to resolve the problem with the one editor, is now himself on the ArbCom. Likewise for another mediator, who herself is now on the ArbCom.) Perhaps it is now time for seeing if the newly elected ArbCom will grant "cert" and take this case. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on SB's comments above, have tagged individual paragraphs. Lets focus on identifying specific problems, not claiming "systemic pro-gun bias" for everything. Yaf (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Have self reverted, now that SB has tagged the whole article again. Guess we are not to try to fix specific problems, then, but just claim the article has systemic bias and leaved it tagged POV forever? Yaf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my comments. You also have not responded to my comments and questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And just what was your question, SB? I didn't see a question. (in diatribes #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the other number 6.7.) Yaf (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk page above, and the talk page archives. The way to bring this dispute to an end is to discuss our disagreement and come to agreement. Instead I am repeatedly stonewalled. Asking again one of these questions: Yaf, could you please point to an example of a reliable source which you view as being written with a neutral point of view? I would like to know your thoughts on this so I (we) may better understand your position. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous such sources (Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.) But, the relevance to writing Wikipedia articles implicit with your question is non-existent. The goal of Wikipedia is to include multiple cited sources, not a single source, for writing articles, such that all major points of view are included. Your proposal is therefore a red herring, that will accomplish nothing, as you consider all edits other than those reflecting your own POV as "pro-gun", and bitterly disagree with all edits other than your own edits (which are relatively few, I might add). Such editor behavior is borderline disruptive, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (WP:DFTT?) Yet, the historical record is clear; the individual right interpretations of the Second Amendment came before the collective right interpretations, which both came before the civic duty interpretations. And, the first interpretations of the Second Amendment occurred in state jurisprudence, for both the individual and collective right interpretations. Yet, you insist on censorship of all such cited historical facts, cited with reliable and verifiable sources, that present other than the modified collective right interpretations consistent with service in a select militia, that didn't become formalized until the early 20th Century. This approach ignores nearly 150 years of the earlier history of the Second Amendment, or perhaps 175 years of the history, if one considers the history for the first 150 years coupled with the recent history for the last 25 years. And, you continually conflate the history of militia and militia laws with the Second Amendment, despite being that such topics are about entirely different subjects than the Second Amendment. It would be much the same if I insisted that all your edits to the article were "anti-rights", and claimed that the article was full of systemic bias that is "anti-rights", and if I also tried to conflate the First through the Tenth Amendments to being equivalent with the Second Amendment. This would be no different than what you have done over the last 3.5 years, under all your "handles" on Wikipedia. You have also committed a POV fork with the creation of the Right to keep and bear arms article, which you began as a POV fork of this very article, while trying to scrub individual right content and state jurisprudence content regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment out of the Second Amendment article. Meanwhile, we have gone through Third Opinion. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through informal mediation. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through formal mediation twice. (Both unsuccessful.) We have gone before ArbCom once. (They ducked the issue.) And we have expended megabytes of discussion on the talk pages, all to no avail. The dispute could end today, if you would but accept article content based on cited, reliable, and verifiable sources presenting other than a collective right interpretation for a select militia. (By the way, who is the "I (we)" to which you refer?) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. (I am ignoring the portions of your reply which are a personal attack.) You see as neutral the writings of Vin Suprynowicz, a libertarian opinion columnist and author of the book _Send in the Waco Killers_ [8], a book with an illustration of the Statue of Liberty holding an assault rifle on the cover. I respect that point of view, but please explain how that is a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view must fairly understand and describe the point of view of the opposition. For instance, can you give an example of the Suprynowicz style of wording which is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. For instance, the subject of common sense gun law in relation to the Second Amendment. Give an example of neutral wording, please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. Suprynowicz is useful primarily for documenting popular opinions that currently exist regarding the Second Amendment, for ob-relevance to the current discussion. I fail to see where his collection of old essays on the Waco siege are relevant to writing this article on the Second Amendment. Suprynowicz was also a Vice Presidential candidate of the Libertarian party. Should any politician or author, regardless of political party, be used as the sole source for writing an article on Wikipedia? Of course not. But, the opinions of such folk are certainly useful for documenting opinions that exist, which are often entirely appropriate for inclusion in an article for arriving at a balanced treatment of an article topic. (Incidentally, Suprynowicz's use of irony, ridicule, and satire are not new concepts; they have been used for millennia, see, for example ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes). As stated previously, no single source is appropriate for writing an article on Wikipedia, contrary to what you propose. Your proposed use of a "sole source" for citation in writing this article remains a red herring, intended for drawing the dogs of opinion off into irrelevant byways. Lets focus on the topic at hand. Namely, using a wide range of citations, from reliable and verifiable sources for writing this article. This approach would produce the best article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. The issue is the neutrality balance point. Your excess focus on WP:RS is selective and evades the POV problem. Neutrality and verifiability: it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. . See the 8 items I listed above, there remains an unaddressed neutrality problem with this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And so we return once again to the same old complaint, namely, all edits must pass your sole approval, else they reflect "systemic pro-gun bias", because this article attracts editors other than yourself who do not have your keen sense of the proper balance point for the article, especially made difficult since your viewpoint is removed from the actual balance point of the sum total of all neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. This article shouldn't read like a Brady Campaign poster, with Paul Helmke talking points or Saul Cornell comments, exclusively. (They represent only 2 of the 3 major viewpoints regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment.) The Supreme Court view of the Second Amendment, too, is considered by you to be an extreme POV, which should be excised from the article, except for the minority opinion in the Heller decision, because they just got it wrong according to SaltyBoatr. All major viewpoints should be contained in the article. But, I along with other editors have stated this over and over, including through formal MedCom arbitration, and you have always refused to compromise. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. I see no path to resolving this non-existant "POV issue" between one editor versus a large number of editors, who see no POV problems, and that you therefore insist on calling names (namely, "pro-gun"), for their clear lack of sensitivity that you, solely, possess. This is not The SaltyBoatr's Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. But, of course, you don't believe this. Too bad. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the character attacks please. I asked you for an example of neutral wording found in reliable sourcing and you pointed to well known advocacy authors David Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, Vin Suprynowicz. Can we agree that neutrality is not advocacy? That seems to be the root of our disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked for an example of a reliable source who writes with a neutral point of view. In return, I mentioned several: Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.. All of these are neutral sources. Yes, I know you disagree with the SCOTUS, but it is a neutral source, nonetheless. Likewise, Halbrook, Cramer, and Kopel are well-respected historians, who have no clouds of academic malfeasance or misconduct hanging over them like Michael A. Bellesiles. Bellisiles is not an appropriate source, having been forced out of Emory University over academic malfeasance regarding his book and published papers, having made up results from records that were destroyed in the Great San Francisco Earthquake. Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize award from Columbia University was rescinded, too, for his book. Yet, if I recall correctly, you used quotes from his book under your other Wikipedia handle to slant this article based upon his now discredited and retracted formerly prize winning book, only backing down when held to task for pushing a proven discredited and non-reliable source. Suprynowicz is a well-respected syndicated columnist and sometimes politician, who again has no malfeasance hanging over him. All of these sources I mentioned are suitable as neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If you would prefer Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and Paul Helmke, who are generally associated with being strong advocates of the NRA and the Brady Campaign, respectively, that is fine, too, provided we include a balance of sources to represent all major points of view and don't list just, say, Paul Helmke's talking points, to which you continually point to with the Brady Campaign quotes and cites. But calling the Supreme Court of the United States, and well-respected historians, writers, and politicians "well known advocacy authors" is entirely inappropriate just because they don't agree with "The SaltyBoatr's View of the World". Yaf (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I raised eight specific POV issues[9][10], and Yaf since has written several thousand words, none addressing my eight specific concerns. Mostly Yaf is attacking my personal character and straw men. Instead of addressing my eight specific issues, Yaf responds with delay tactics and diversion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No delays, no diversions. The 8 "points" are totally without merit, reducing instead to the single issue of non-conformance with The SaltyBoatr View of the World, which has been discussed at length. It is senseless to play the same old SB game played previously in Formal Mediation, in which the goal posts were moved each and every time in response to attempts to address SB's lengthy lists of points/"questions". Each attempt at answering a point/"question" only leads to additional lists of points/"questions". They multiply geometrically. Ad nauseum. I refuse to play, but choose instead to address the real issues. Yaf (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, you referred to SaltyBoatr's "other Wikipedia handle". Does he still use that "handle"? What's the history regarding that "handle"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my username a long time ago. Can we please discuss the article instead of me? I was asked to explain the POV tag. I explained myself by itemizing eight specific concerns. Since, all I see are several thousand words questioning my personal character and attacking straw men. Zero words written about the eight specific issues. Can we get to work here? Focus on the article, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Although SaltyBoatr added the SaltyBoatr name "a long time ago" (March 2007), checking logs shows SaltyBoatr does still use the other handle. In all fairness, he has not violated any 3RR edit warring sanctions using his old name simultaneous to the new name. It is a non-issue, and I respect SaltyBoatr's right to privacy. What is important about this is that the current POV dispute dates to several years earlier than the "SaltyBoatr" name, and nothing has changed regarding his claims of "systemic pro-gun bias" in this and other articles. Relative to the 8 current points:

1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.

The claim that the wording of the 2A is itself proof of "originalism and textualism" is bogus. It is simply statement of historical fact. Quoting the 2A is not excessive reliance of a "theory of originalism and textualism", but simply quotes the Amendment's wording, much like every other article on US Constitution amendments. The article clearly states that regulation of concealed firearms is not a violation of the the 2A. The text of the 2A is, itself, not "pro-gun". This point is a non-issue.

2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.

There is no original research concerning "concealed carry" theory in the article. Rather, the meaning of the Second Amendment that occurred in state jurisprudence evolved over time, and this history is important for understanding the history of the interpretation of the 2A. Yes, in Bliss, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and even the former Attorney General of the United States did both arrive at the conclusion that the 2A protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms even if the arms were kept and borne as concealed carry arms. However, as the article also points out, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1897 to clear up this misconception that regulating concealed carry did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again, the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights; it only discusses the change of interpretation that evolved over time. This second point is a non-issue.

3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.

For such a contentious topic, it is impossible to pick, say, talking points from the Brady Campaign or likewise from the NRA as a single cited source for defining a neutral tone and quoting such talking points solely. There are no neutral tone sources available for such a contentious topic. Instead, the article seeks to achieve balance by including cited statements from all sides of the debate (individual right, collective right, and civic duty) and allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Pushing a Brady Campaign agenda is not setting a neutral tone.

4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.

Inclusion of the Militia Act of 1903, and similar lengthy definitions and history of the National Guard, have little to no bearing on the history of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, if credible sources are found claiming otherwise, then such content would be suitable. But, the inclusion of such musings without any cites claiming relevance to the Second Amendment are just Original Research, and must be struck from the article.

5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.

The short statements excerpted from these court cases are stated neutrally and are properly cited, with no judgmental tone. Just because the results of these court cases doesn't agree with The SaltyBoatr View of the World is no reason for claiming "pro-gun bias". (I fail to see how the US Supreme Court can be considered to have "pro-gun bias".)

6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)

If properly cited content is added, there is no problem. The lack of sources making such claims, however, is a problem when content conflating the Militia Act of 1903 with the Second Amendment is made without any sourcing. It is simply Original Research that must be kept out of the article. However, as noted in the article the vast majority of 40 papers and even the Supreme Court in Heller has found that a right of personal firearms for self defense and a collective use of personal firearms in a militia and a guarantee of the people to have the ability for establishing a resistance against Government tyrrany are precisely what the Second Amendment is all about. These points have all been written and cited with numerous sources. If there is a lack of sources claiming otherwise, it is not an indication of "systemic pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment" in this article.

7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[11], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.

Pushing the points of views of agendas of the Brady Campaign, or of the Gun Owners of America, that come from either end of the political spectrum, represents the pushing of agendas far removed from the mainstream. Neither of these points are present to any great extent in the article at present. Instead, the article uses sourcing representing the bulk of the reliable sources from the mainstream. That said, there is no problem with adding small amounts of even fringe beliefs from organizations such as these, provided such content is not expanded to the point of deletion of content representing the majority of reliable and verifiable sources. But, calling minority views from either the Brady Campaign or the Gun Owners of America worthy of equal weight with majority views from neutral sources such as the Supreme Court of the United States is not according to standard Wikipedia practice.

8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other.

I fail to understand how the modern militia movement has any great bearing on an article on the Second Amendment. Should content representing neo-Nazis, skinheads, and such be added to this article, expressing their beliefs in the Second Amendment and their rights to keep and bear arms? This hardly seems reasonable. A statement or two at most is probably all that should even be considered here. Again, there needs to be reliable and verifiable sources for making any such claims, rather than just adding Original Research. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not being an expert in the second amendment, I have kept quiet around many of the issues around this discussion page. One of the points made in the ongoing discussion, however, seems biased enough to warrant comment: the comparison of the Brady Campaign to the Gun Owners of America. To compare an extreme gun rights organization with a mainstream gun control organization is clearly biased - The Brady campaign is clearly not a "fringe" group in the same way the GOA is. A more valid comparison would be the Brady Campaign with the NRA - These two organizations both have clearly shown more willingness to compromise on gun control issues than the GOA (The GOA's F rating of John McCain should be clear evidence of this). The implications here for sourcing should be obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To call a gun control organization such as the Brady Campaign as "mainstream" is also a form of bias. And, the NRA is itself considered an extreme organization by members of JPFO and GOA, for example. And, many NRA members consider the GOA to be an extreme organization, formed from the more radical former members of the NRA, who left the NRA over a dispute. Even the League of Women Voters, and several churches, for example, are likewise advocacy groups on this topic. "Mainstream", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Use of such wording should be avoided in writing articles. Similarly, use of talking points from any of these such advocacy groups should likewise be largely deprecated. For this reason, I have proposed we stay away from talking points of the Brady Campaign, the NRA, the JPFO, and the GOA alike, along with other advocacy organizations, to achieve the best balance. (If you note, I also do compare the NRA to the Brady Campaign above; the comparisons chosen depend on the context of the comparison.) Yes, both the Brady Campaign and the NRA have been more prone to compromise, but this also makes them more suspect in the eyes of many, who do not see any advantage to surrendering any inalienable rights.) Sources should be mostly selected from peer reviewed works of non-tainted academics, respected books such as chosen by the courts in documenting court cases, and from court case transcripts themselves, along with other neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources, in citing this article. To do otherwise is to fall into the pit of opinion and advocacy arguments, ad infinitum, which only throws "more petrol onto the fyre." Yaf (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is why I favor sticking to middle ground book sources, published and fact checked by well respected publishing houses. I do not advocate for extremist advocacy from either side of the debate. There is plenty of objective published neutral scholarship. I favor Macmillan/McGraw-Hill over Shotgun News. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with both Yaf and SaltyBoatr that all advocacy organizations should be avoided as sources except to demonstrate minority POVs. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 7 Neutrality Tone balance

then why did you reference an advocacy group in point seven, rather than a reliable source? Anastrophe (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will assume your question is asked in good faith. The point I was trying to make is that the neutrality balance of the article should fall at a neutral balance point located in the middle, between the various credible points of views. On one side is the point of view of Paul Helmke as seen on HuffingtonPost.com in the link I provided and on the other side are the points of views of Vin Suprynowicz and Clayton Cramer editorial columnists for ShotgunNews.com. Yaf has said that he views Suprynowicz and Cramer as good examples of "neutral wording". This article skews unduly towards being sympathetic of the views of Suprynowicz and Cramer. This article skews away from the point of view of Helmke. This indicates a POV WP:UNDUE balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is precisely one cite to Cramer, footnote no. 84. There is precisely one lengthy quote and a cite to Helmke, footnote no. 40. By your reasoning, we should expand Cramer's content to include a quote, too, to achieve balance. There are no cites to Suprynowicz. Collectively, this indicates no POV WP:UNDUE balance problem, statistically speaking. Cramer and Suprynowicz have also written for the Wall Street Journal. But, you chose a weekly trade newspaper to attach their syndicated work to. OK. That is just an example of POV pushing. I get it. Meanwhile, Helmke has also written for the Huffington Post, and for the Wall Street Journal. I don't see a significant difference here, among the publishing outlets for any of these authors. The ad hominem attacks on Cramer and Suprynowicz, meanwhile, are not conducive to judging the appropriateness of their work for use in citing information in this article. The more serious allegation of "POV WP:UNDUE balance problem" seems unfounded, statistically speaking. Rather, it seems to be just a case of more POV pushing. This is not appropriate. Yaf (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You twist my words. I was talking of neutrality balance point and tone[12]. The point of view of Paul Helmke about Heller and the 2A being consistent with "common sense gun laws", as he expressed in the editorial in the link I provided, is an example of the point of view missing in the article. That point of view is entirely missing. And, the overall tone of the article skews sympathetic to Cramer and Suprynowicz. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Second Amendment, not about Heller. For commentary on Heller, see the Heller article content (in District of Columbia v. Heller) cited by footnote 50 in the Heller article. Such detailed discussion of the meaning of Heller from advocacy groups belongs there, not here. There is also no information from the NRA regarding the meaning of Heller here. There is content in the Heller article, however, from the NRA, commenting on Heller. The only thing that is twisted here is your sense of POV balance, wanting to always insert one-sided rhetoric pushing the Brady Campaign talking points into this article to the exclusion of presenting neutral content. Extremist positions from both sides of the debate (Brady Campaign or the opposite) related to other topics than the Second Amendment do not deserve any great prominence in this article, being fringe points of view, and certainly do not warrant presentation in a one-sided POV commentary as you propose. As for claims that the views of the article are skewed sympathetic to the views of Cramer and Suprynowicz, this is just Original Research on your part. The article content is certainly not cited to them, save for one footnote attributed to Cramer, i.e., footnote 84. The view that this whole article is somehow biased "systemically pro-gun" simply because it doesn't reflect the sole point of view of the Brady Campaign is without merit. Yaf (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Heller decision didn't advocate gun possession it simply upheld the original intent of the 2A. Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the 2A aren't based upon a neutral point of view. They're based upon what the Founding Fathers intended by adding the Bill of Rights. The Heller decision wasn't pro-gun or anti-gun. It simply recognized that the 2A's "shall not be infringed" applies exclusively to the federal government and thus also to citizens of the US who are under federal jurisdiction such as the District of Columbia. The confusion arises from pro-gun groups like the NRA, SAF, etc. who habitually add 'right' to 2A (Second Amendment right) and commensurately ignore all state constitutions. The 2A does not secure, grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on it. All High Court decisions that have considered the meaning of the 2A have unequivically stated that. The 2A article should inform readers of the 2A's lawful purpose, not what some people say about it. An article on constitutional law should not be neutral it should be truthful. (Truwik (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I feel that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Here is what the Justices concurring and dissenting concluded:

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. “... I take as a starting point the following ... to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).”

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Had the [Miller] Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

I believe there is no neutral scholar on this subject. You can personally disagree with the judges but their decision is final. The "common sense" view is not what the Court determined is the law. Dissenting opinions are only that. The individual right position is no longer a point of view. It's binding law. There are topics that remain to be decided but balancing successful and unsuccessful arguments on settled matters is a useless point of view. 69.36.252.34 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the supposition "that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect. The "collective right" vs. "Individual right" controversy was not over which group possessed the right, it was over which group's right could be constitutionally infringed upon. Prior to Heller, the understanding of Congress was that the 2A's prefatory militia clause, limited the 'shall not be infringed' restriction clause to militia-type weapons. This was later dubbed the 'collective right' concept, and in subsequent legislation (e.g.,National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968) Congress limited their infringing to weapons that they deemed were not suitable for militia or army use. Heller then decided that the 2A's restriction clause applied to non-militia type weapons as well (the 'individual right') and held the D.C. handgun ban ordinance as violative of the 2A, and thus unconstitutional. In Justice Stevens' dissent, he first stated: "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of the right." Stevens then went far afield with "The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank." Justice Stevens' conjecture: "'Surely it [the 2A] protects a right that can be enforced by individuals" is both incomplete and incorrect. It 'protects' the right only from federal infringement; and nowhere did Heller, or any other High Court decision, hold that individuals can 'enforce' their own right. His concern about the 'scope of the right' not being addressed, demonstrates his 'collective right' activist nature. For example, the Heller majority said: "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government - even the Third Branch of Government - the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon" (pp. 62-3, opinion, court's italics). Mr. Justice Stevens' dissenting response to this: "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons..." (p. 46, dissent). Which is precisely what the Framers did, however, Justice Stevens' "elected officials" should have read "Congress." The 2A's restriction applies only to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I see several problems here. WP:NPOV policy doesn't require finding a neutral scholar, it requires that representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Since when are judges decisions final? Rather, the current holding, in principle, is respected as the current precedence. Anon above mentions "individual rights position is no longer a point of view", which grants that prior to the present time is was a point of view. In other words things change over time, and this article should describe not just the present condition, but also historical conditions as they change over time, agreed?

And, perhaps most important, the meaning of "Individual Rights Position" hasn't been agreed. Different people and advocacy groups hold wildly different beliefs as to the meaning of the concept. Looking around I see so many credible points of view, the "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" understandings and the "After Heller, The Gun Lobby's Slippery Slope Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead" understandings and the icing on the cake, penned by Justice Scalia: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective "binding law"? It is precedent, and we will see many court cases sorting out what that precedent means. Time will tell. This topic is in flux[13]. In the mean time, this article needs to fairly, without bias, represent all significant viewpoints. Presently it does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States, even if the decision is "fuzzy," unless overruled by the Court (e.g., Agostini v. Felton) or by amending the law interpreted in that case (e.g., Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). As for Wikipedia, Supreme Court decisions are a powerful source for what a Constitutional provision mean, but aren't to be considered definitive. SMP0328. (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? Without incorporation Heller has limited effect on state laws in the courts of the 50 states. Also, nowhere is there a handgun licensing and lock ordinance identical to what DC had, so "binding" has what specific meaning? The reality is that Heller provides a new precedence, yet to be interpreted in forthcoming court cases which will reveal more. Further, it has zero effect on Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think Heller only applies if the challenged law is "identical" to the DC law struck down in that case? Court decisions are not read so narrowly. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, nobody thought it only applied to Topeka, Kansas or the law at issue in that case; it was the end of "separate but equal." SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Yet, if the law is not identical to the DC law, the court must interpret. That process of interpretation sometimes takes a very long time, and a very many court cases. Have you read the criticism?[14][15][16][17]. Therefore, the article must be very careful using the term "individual rights" when that term, a political slogan, is so ill defined and ambiguous. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Adam Winkler, Professor at UCLA School of Law, Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.. We should be very careful writing in the article that Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land, when in fact this is a very fuzzy concept. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'individual' vs. 'collective' right debate is offpoint. The Heller Court decided that the 2A's 'right of the people' meant individual as well as collective. Thus 'individual' would include all people whether or not associated with militias. What has been missed here is that Heller then applied that holding to people who were not in militias, and in the federal District of Columbia. Congress followed up with a law which voided the D.C. ordinance that had outlawed possession of handguns in the District. The Heller decision has no other effect than that. When the Court stated the 2A protected individuals, it meant it only protected them from federal infringement. Prior to that, Congress had held that only weapons suitable for militias were exempt from their infringement. Now, after Heller, any federal legislation that infringes on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms, would be unconstitutional. The point to remember here is that the 2A does not grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It only protects the right from federal infringement. (Truwik (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

One correction to the above comment: the Council of the District of Columbia, not the Congress, amended DC law post-Heller. Also, to clarify, Heller ruled that an individual had a right to keep and bear arms without having to be a member of any State's militia. It did not speak to any right of any State regarding its militia (i.e., the "collective right"). SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of law: The 2A does not say 'people have a right to keep and bear arms', it says: 'the right...shall not be infringed.' Heller held that the 2A's restriction applied to federal laws that infringed on individual arms as well as collective militia-type weapons. That ruling applied the 2A's restriction to the District of Columbia ordinance, it has no effect within the states. Again, the 2A does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it only restricts the federal government from infringing on it, and now after Heller, it restricts citizens in D.C. and other federal territories from infringing on each other's right. (Truwik (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

The operative clause of the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where in the Heller decision did a majority of the Supreme Court say the Second Amendment protected State militias? I believe it only referenced militias in its discussion of individual right the Court said the Second Amendment protects. SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prohibiting infringement of the right to keep and bear arms does not confer it. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, at p. 553, the Court said: "the right is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Art. I, Sec. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution reads:"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Truwik (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Arzberger

Another gun control law (embedded in the Adam Walsh Act) has fallen post-Heller in US v. Arzberger(see transcript). What is interesting is that automatic suspension of an individual's right to arms is no longer automatic. Specifically, "an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose ... also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]". Interesting, most interesting. Who would've "thunk" it? Yaf (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the case where gun licensing fees are axed as an infringement. We have a Constitutinal amendment forbidding the use of poll taxes as an infringement on the right to vote. Licensing fees are in the same category of infringement. Both require you to pay to exercise an inherent right.

If the government wants to keep track of guns, the cost should be out of their pocket4.154.236.158 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have added the Arzberger "protectible liberty interest" details to the article. Very interesting fall-out from Heller, with regards to interpreting the Second Amendment, that are coming from this new case. Yaf (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 67 request full quote

Bumping this talk page thread which got archived without an answer. I am still requesting a longer quote from this extremely obscure source for confirmation. Who is speaking? What is the question being answered? What is the context of that discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See this diff[18]. I agree there are unanswered questions about the "violative" snippet quote. Yaf, please answer the open questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. Yaf, please provide the full quote requested. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Brady Campaign POV

Allowing commentary from a gun control group and disallowing such from gun ownership advocacy groups such as the NRA is blatant POV. The comment should either be removed or comments from gun advocacy groups should be allowed into the article.

To Salty Boatr - The above is called BALANCE. Something you keep spouting about but never seem to practice.68.160.163.116 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say I'm amazed!

I went and looked up older versions of the article and the Brady Campaign references have been in the article for at least 2 years (I got tired of looking and stopped in early 2007).

With all the hoopla about the NRA being partial on the issue and therefore not a citeable source, how come nobody noticed that the Brady Campaign is also partial on the issue and ALSO NOT A CITEABLE source?

SIMPLY F'N AMAZING!68.160.163.116 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe the Brady Campaign references should be removed or should NRA references be added? SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If the NRA is a biased source and can't be used as source material for that reason, then the same goes for the Brady Campaign, I therefore go with removed.

An alternate answer is, if you want to get the ongoing POV tag off the article at some point, you need to satisfy a certain editor who froths at the mouth at the mere mention of the NRA!68.163.105.54 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with removing the Brady Campaign references?68.163.105.54 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using a new another internet provider (and another computer) for the above, but it seems that someone decided to block that computers access to editing wiki. So I went back to the old one computer and internet provider.

I find that block in the midst of complaining about a BLATANT POV issue a bit disturbing. I HOPE it was not maliciously done to shut me up.

Back to the issue: What is the difficulty with removing references to the Brady Campaign?4.154.251.209 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank the person who removed some of the Brady Campaign references. However two still remain. One is the quote backed by footnote 40 and the other the quote backed by footnote 117.

I am holding Brady Campaign references to the same standard as NRA material. That standard is no mention at all, and no use of posibly biased matterial as backing for any quote of figure. Any breach of this standard is in fact POV bias in the article.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sice the article is now unprotected, I took action and deleted the last two references to the Brady Campaign material.

As a result,I have no POV issues wih the article.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting from Cornell's book

The text inserted by SaltyBoatr ended up as: "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted. ... Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the case... (as) a disgrace that ultimately revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law.”" I reduced this quote to just "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.” for the reason that Cornell's book said no such thing. SaltyBoatr selectively selected phrases over 2 pages, hidden by the ellipses, to construct the implication that the Monthly Law Report denounced the case. It did no such thing according to Cornell. Rather, the MLR denounced something else entirely (the "atrocity of the deed" committed by Ward.) I have corrected (for the second time) the misquote due to SaltyBoatr's editing through selectively looking for words over two pages to construct a POV pushing statement that is entirely different from what the source actually says. Such POV pushes must stop. Let's stick with the actual words in books, while not leaving out words to change the meaning 180 degrees from what the source(s) actually say. Yaf (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that editor Yaf's statement is simply not accurate. The exact quote from the book is "Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the 'atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted.' The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law.” Although the denouncing was of the deed, it is clear that the book says that the Monthly Reporter did indeed call the case a disgrace that revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law. For this reason, I am reinserting the sentence into the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No inaccuracy on my part. Calling the case a "disgrace" is not the same as saying that denouncing the atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted is the same as denouncing the case. Let's stick to the actual quotes, OK? When a "quote" is manufactured using multiple ellipses, it generally is taken as evidence of a POV push, especially when the denouncing of the deed is confused with denouncing the case. No inacccuracy on my part, but, rather, a sly POV push on SaltyBoatr's part, and on your part, too, in manufacturing a "quote" or a "quote" misdirection to fit pushing a POV agenda. This clearly needs to stop. The actual complete quote from p. 150 is: Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the "atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted." Ward had clearly benefited from the anomalous holding in Bliss. Still, even outside of Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's laywers had entered the legal mainstream. Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss would only grow stronger over time. The more complete quote presents an entirely different emphasis than what your present selection in the article indicates Cornell says. Another POV push that needs to be fixed. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the MLR's calling Bliss a "disgrace" in regards to its ruling on the RKBA? If not, how is that material germane to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Only in conflating "disgrace" in an attempt at "badmouthing" the primitives in Kentucky with such odd ideas. An entirely different insult, altogether. Such irrelevant material really doesn't belong in this article. If it is here, it needs to be accurate, though. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Have added the complete quote, and corrected page numbers, to eliminate the unbalanced POV push. (Personally, though, I think the portion of the quote after "acquitted" doesn't belong, being irrelevant. Yaf (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that the only POV being pushed is Yaf's. The 'correction' relentlessly pushes the idea that the Bliss decision gained mainstream acceptance here, which inside of a full reading of Cornell, is a highly slanted position, ignoring the popular condmenation of the decision based on these grounds, both in the populace and law journals. I will make a correction to fully reflect the text. Either Cornell is used or it is not; you can't use it for your own agenda. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to sound harsh - However it appears to me that when you quote a whole paragraph, remove the one critical sentence that seems to go against your POV (without using any notation to mention you were altering the quote) and then calling it 'eliminating POV push', you are not accurately reflecting what your edit actually is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excepting the "one critical sentence" you added in the middle of a quote is not taken verbatim from Cornell's book in the quote that is cited. I have no problems with you (or anyone else, for that matter) adding another cite for a separate "disgrace" comment, with another cite and another/other page number. But, pushing a new sentence of your own into an actual quote taken from and cited from Cornell is OR and is intellectually dishonest; Whatever gets added needs to be accurate in summarizing what Cornell (or whomever) has actually stated. And, lets not go and modify quotes, inserting other statements to push any particular POV, OK? That said, add the other comment, outside the quote, or in a separate quote, in either case add the reliable and verifiable cite; then, it becomes no problem. Yaf (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what book you are reading, but what I'm looking at shows that 'Kentucky justice' quote smack in the middle of p. 150. The other editor obviously saw this sentence too - It was not invented. I am reinserting it in the article because it's in A Well Regulate Militia on p. 150. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

this sounds to me like a discrepancy between editions. it might be helpful to list the full publishing data here for comparison. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How likely could it be, with word wrap, for there to be discrepancy between editions and still have this passage fall on page 150 in both editions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

it's entirely likely. why do you ask? often differences between editions are comprised of fixes of typos, paragraph break changes, and corrections of material. those changes - often including both the addition and subtraction of small amounts of text - can easily fall within the same page numbering. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You think it is likely? Don't make me laugh. I ask because I am mad about being falsely accused of fraud. It would be nice to clear the air and have Yaf show us a scan, or describe exactly which edition of the book he was reading. I fully expect to be ignored by Yaf, or to hear an excuse that he doesn't have a scanner. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally assume good faith for editors, however, based upon your past history[19], specifically for you being known for changing quotes/sources to something other than what is actually in the source, my level of skepticism was naturally high in this instance, especially as I had a copy of the book without the POV statement. If I have offended you by questioning the veracity of your quote, I apologize. But, your POV pushing history is such that trust has to be re-earned gradually after an author has previously been found guilty of intentionally misusing sources in "citing" Wikipedia articles. The ultimate goal is an accurate Wikipedia. Questioning sources and quotes through verifying them is never meant to cause issues, only to ensure that Wikipedia is kept accurate. In this case, there was a difference between editions of the book that caused further skepticism. Yaf (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your backhanded apology, mixed with a spurious personal attack, falls short. Notice, that Yaf ignored my request for clarification of exactly which edition of the book he is reading. Exactly which version of page 150 are you reading Yaf? Please respond. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered this previously[20]. But, since you evidently had trouble reading this previously, it is ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. Yaf (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not misquote. The full paragraph on page 150 of Cornell's book ISBN 0-19-514786-3 (Oxford University Press, 2006) reads:

note - saltyboatr modified the above ISBN after it was pointed out that it was invalid. it would be preferred not to alter the extant record of conversation, as it obfuscates what's going on in the following discussion. i would recommend that SB undo the change of ISBN, post a corrected ISBN separately, and then delete my comments here. Anastrophe (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I corrected the ISBN. I accidentally typed a 9 instead of a 6. This is obvious. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the "atrocity of deed for which the prisoner was indicted." The case was "a disgrace" that ultimately revealed more about the "Kentucky justice" than it did about American law. Ward clearly benefited from anomalous holding in Bliss. Still, even outside Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's lawyers had entered the legal mainstream. Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss grew only stronger over time."24

It is very curious that Yaf's quote of this same passage is missing the sentence marked in bold, and that Yaf accuses me of fraud. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is curious is that ISBN 0-19-514789-3 decodes as an invalid ISBN number, providing further indication of fraud. (Click on it, you will see.) It is also not the ISBN number of the Cornell book that is cited, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, which is a source that I provided/documented, that is an actual ISBN number and which decodes as valid when you click on it. Meanwhile, I still need to do some additional serious WorldCat and OCLC digging on this. What a quick look shows, though, is that there are 3 hardcopy editions, and 6 misc. electronic editions, dating from 2006, 2007, and 2008. SaltyBoatr, what is the real ISBN number of the Cornell book that "shows" the extra sentence? Yaf (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the "quote" listed here by SaltyBoatr is different than Nwlaw63's "quote" of the supposed same passage that he has inserted into the article, all while referencing the ISBN number of a source that does not contain this added sentence in its text,

“Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted. ... Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the 'atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted.' The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. Ward had clearly benefited from the anomalous holding in Bliss. Still, even outside of Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's laywers had entered the legal mainstream. Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss would only grow stronger over time."

So which is it? "The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. " or "The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about the 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. And, what is the real ISBN number of this "supposed" source? Yaf (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf don't you have a copy of this book handy? Here is a scan of page 150[21], read it for yourself. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The ISBN SB gave is one digit off from the ISBN-10 for this book. The second to last digit should be a 6 rather than a 9. Celestra (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated previously, I do have a copy of Cornell's book. I just happen to have a later edition than you are reading, judging from the ISBN numbers. I also now believe that the POV phrase was in Cornell's first edition of his book, from seeing the picture SaltyBoatr graciously provided above, but that the POV phrase was removed after the first edition by Cornell. (Also, contrary to what SaltyBoatr so forcefully stated above, he not only misquoted the text, now corrected above with SaltyBoatr's newly-added strikeout, but he also misquoted the ISBN number as well. Argggh... Let's pay more attention to details in the future, please.) Meanwhile, there are still differences in the quoted texts between editions, and the later edition that is cited in the article does not contain the additional POV phrase. We need to resolve this. Which edition of Cornell should we use for this cite? Should we cite the article with the later edition ISBN number incorrectly, while retaining the POV phrase that Cornell evidently dropped when correcting his book between editions/printings? (That is where we are now, incidently.) Or, should we cite the article with the older edition ISBN number, with the older POV phrase retained in the article? Since authors do correct their books in publishing newer editions, I move that we go with the Cornell-corrected, later ISBN edition/printing, for which the POV phrase was removed by Cornell. That would most accurately reflect Cornell's latest belief(s). If so, then the ISBN number that is cited in the article is correct, but the POV phrase that existed in the older edition needs to be removed, such that the quote accurately reflects what Cornell currently believes, in the later corrected editions of his book. We should not hold to a "typographical error" that Cornell himself has subsequently corrected, just to make a POV push addition to the article. Comments? Yaf (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, exactly which edition of Cornell's book are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered this previously[22]. But, since you evidently had trouble reading this previously, it is ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. It is worth noting that 13-digit ISBNs, if available, generally should be used for Wikipedia, as these became standard on all new printings of books as of January 1, 2007. (See Wikipedia:ISBN.) The older 2006 edition of Cornell that you list only has an ISBN 10 digit code. Yaf (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I do not own the book - My information came from viewing page 150 on Amazon.com, which lists an August, 4, 2008 publication date with two ISBN numbers - 10: 0195341031 and 13:978-0195341034. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers refer to the paperback. Amazon.com presents the hardcover when you examine the paperback; there is a little banner about that at the top of the page. Celestra (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth urging that we don't accuse each other of bad faith in what is obviously just a big misunderstanding. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of a book with an ISBN number identical to Yaf, in my hand now. Here is a scan of the title page[23] of that book showing the ISBN number 978-0-19-514786-5. My copy of the book shows the "Kentucky justice" sentence on page 150[24]. Yaf claims his book with this identical ISBN number does not include this sentence on page 150. Explain how two books with identical ISBN numbers are likely for one to be missing a sentence on page 150? This rises just short of proof, but it appears that there is more than a misunderstanding here. Is there another possible explanation for this anomaly I am missing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr assumes every other editor is "pro-gun" and is consistently injecting systemic "pro-gun" bias into their every edit on Wikipedia for all edits that are not personally approved by him. It's not personal, and I take no offense at his continuous bad faith assumptions, being his equal-opportunity jabs are directed at all editors and not just me. Getting back on topic, according to WorldCat, there are 9 different editions/printings of this book by Cornell: ISBN 978-0-19-534103-4 ISBN 0-19-534103-1 Book 2008; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Downloadable computer file 2008; OCLC 166921403 Audio Book 2007: ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978- 0-19-514786-5 eBook 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006; OCLC 271577871 ebook 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006. What is worth noting is that there are different editions with the same ISBN numbers among the different printings. I am not familiar with what constitutes a requirement for a new ISBN number. Is it common practice to keep the same ISBN number on a book, yet actually change content in subtle ways between printings, or, say, for publishing in different formats, or for selling into different audiences (say, to NRA audiences vs. to Brady Campaign audiences, for example)? There are 6 editions/printings (if I have counted right) that have the same ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 number all associated with them. Yet, they are in different media and were published in different editions/printings at different times. Most curious. Anyone know how the requirement for getting a new ISBN actually works vs. works by published guidelines? As for which version of Cornell's text should be used for the cite, I personally vote for the latest edition, even if it has the POV statement about Kentucky justice back in it. I advocate accuracy and being up to date on cites, not pushing any particular POV. The August 2008 edition noted by Nwlaw63, though, being an image of a hardcopy version, may actually be of the older first edition hardcopy version; it certainly is not of the paperback version as noted by Celestra, nor is it of the hardcopy version that I have. How do we determine the most recent published version, or the "right" version? Any ideas? Do we even need anything in this quote after "Ward was acquitted."? As I have stated previously, all the other words just look like an attempt to either smear the primitives in Kentucky for having such odd ideas, or to push a POV agenda message into the text of the article or to balance a POV agenda message inserted into the quote. Is there even any need to insert all this POV crap into the quote?Yaf (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, are you willing to post a scan of your page 150 for us to see? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to. A trip to the library today produced a version of the book for me to peruse of a later printing with the POV phrase in it. This obviously now represents Cornell's latest position, hence it is what should be here. The punctuation needed correcting, however. I have fixed that. Yaf (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The need remains. I have been falsely accused of fraud. It is needed to clear the air. Yaf has said that the passage in his copy of the book on 150 does not include "kentucky justice" sentence[25]. Yaf has never explained exactly which edition of the book he holds and how he has a basis of accusing me of fraud. Yaf, this appears very odd, please explain this odd appearance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not falsely. Remember this edit? In it, you falsely claimed the MLR denounced the Bliss case as a disgrace. It did no such thing. Rather, the actual quote says the MLR denounced the atrocity of the deed committed by Ward. Also, you falsely claimed an exact quote that featured a wrong phrasing per the source material, with a falsely claimed ISBN number, that you later subtly modified in your ongoing talk page discussions in the hopes that no one would notice your error and correction, all indicative of further fraud. (Only proper ISBN numbers decode as valid; the one you listed did not decode as valid when clicked.) Now that the whole thing is resolved, and the quote is corrected in a Wikipedia article, and, further, is of the latest versions of Cornell's book, you wish to clear the air. Fine. Start by paying more attention to your "quotes" and your cites (checking ISBN numbers) in the future. It would largely address the whole issue, while avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Stop by not falsely claiming "exact quotes" with typos of non-existent ISBN numbers, of phrasing that doesn't appear in sources. It is you who has blown this misunderstanding all out of proportion. The current text is both accurate, and is consistent with the latest version of Cornell's book. Wikipedia's accuracy is maintained. Let's pay more attention to details in the future, OK? Yaf (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You attempt to focus on me, to divert from you. The fact remains that you explicitly claimed you own a copy of the Cornell book without the "kentucky justice" sentence on page 150. A claim that now seems hugely incredible. You used that claim to accuse me of fraud, a claim (look above) that remains on this talk page. You lack the civil decency to strike your false comments. Now you squirm to avoid proving your claim. And, layer on even more false accusations on my character. It is reasonable to conclude that you actually don't own a book like you said, and what you said is a ___. I need to omit the word and use underscores because of your history of deleting my comments from the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think both editors here need to take a deep breath and review Wikipedia's good faith policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"To Bear Arms" section should be deleted

With the hoopla going on about reducing the article to a smaller, more manageable size, I find that the section on "to bear arms" is fat that need to be trimmed. There is no need to have a section on "to bear arms" and another section on "to keep and bear arms".

Since the Second Amendment wording is about the right "to keep and bear arms", that section should stay. However upon deletion of the "to bear arms" section, enough material should be added (or transfered) to this section to make clear the military usage of the term "to bear arms".4.154.251.209 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell

Found the following summary of his book disturbing. I haven't read the book, but if the summary is correct about the book, then it is more then likely a bunch of self serving ivory tower bullcrap by someone looking to make a name for himself.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE0Nzg2NQ==

Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century.

First there is no such thing as a "civic right" where one OWES something to the government! That is called a civic OBLIGATION! An obligation is most certainly NOT a right! In the same vein, you have the OBLIGATION to pay your taxes, you do not have a RIGHT to pay them. The mere thought of calling an obligation a right makes me want to puke in big chucks.

Second the book is out of date as the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an "individual right". Mr Cornell therefore got it wrong according to the Supreme Court (and according to 75% of the people, per the Brady Campaign).

Third he seems to use the term "well regulated militia" to mean the laws and regulations that call for the creation, organization and running of the militia. That term was not used in that way by the Founders. Well regulated was used to mean "well trained". At some point in this discussion page I even pointed out that Hamilton, the most pro big government of the Founding Fathers, used the term that way in the Federalist Papers.

Fourth, per the summary, he is disparaging of the Anti-Federalists, and excludes them from being Founding Fathers. Not including such notable figures as Patrick Henry and George Mason as a Founding Father is revisionist history at its worst (or best depending on your point of view). Lets not forget that many Federalists also wanted protections against abuse of powers by the Federal Government and were in favor of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Considering that the Second Amendment exists (as does the Bill of Rights) there can be no doubt that a MAJORITY of the Founding Fathers (whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist) were in favor of them.

As he seems to represent a small fringe group, possibly with only 1 member, I don't believe that he deserves mention in the article and references to his book should be deleted.

Again I have not read his book and the summary may be wrong. If anyone can find ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CASE where a court considered his opinions and AGREED with him, then I take back the comment that he is a fringe group so negligible that it does not deserve mention. Until that time I believe all comments to his book should be deleted as gun control POV push from a negligible fringe group.

What I think is a FREAKING HOWL, is that any court case based upon his views would FORCE a person to PURCHASE a gun if he did not already own one, and that his views is being advocated by the editors pushing gun control. By US law every able bodied male up to age 45 is a member of the militia. As members of the militia, per Cornell those people ALL NEED TO OWN A GUN!

Assuming that the summary is correct of course!4.154.232.160 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not beating a dead horse, just one in pain

From Federalist 29 by Hamilton - on what is a well-regulated militia

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

while browsing the web, I ran across the following quote which seems to state that the Federal Farmer, a well known Anti-Federalist writer who wrote extensively against enactment of the Constitution, was Revolutionary War hero Light Horse Harry Lee. Not asking that he be cited in the article. Just an interesting factoid for history buffs.

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

4.154.236.164 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Above quote attributed to Light Horse Lee more then likely wrong. Wiki and another site attributes it to a relative of his by the name of Richard Henry Lee. Among other things, this Lee served as President under the Articles of Confederation. The wiki article on him shows he was the one writing as Federal Farmer. Sorry for any inconvenience to those who only want to edit the article and have no interest in history.4.154.236.164 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The following quote has no place under the section "case law" since to my best knowledge, no court has ever considered this argument in an actual case. It is therefore untested opinion and not case law. I should therefore be deleted from the "case law" section.

According to Saul Cornell, the simplified choices of only two models was an error: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia."[83]

Further, with the Supreme Court ruling of Heller that the Second Amendment protects an "individal right" it will more then likely be a cold day in Hell before any US court hears a case based on this argumnet. Assuming that any editor finds such a miniscule minority opinion to be worth space in the article, he has to find a home for it in another section. I personaly think it is not worth inclusion.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is now unprotected I took action and deleted the Saul Cornell Comment re: gun ownership is a "civic right" (see above for full quote). Unless that argument was heard by a judge and agreed with, it does not belong under "Case Law". Anyone wanting to include it in the article needs to find another home for it. With the Supreme Court ruling that gun owneship is an individual right, I personally don't see the need.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional review of the article has brought up another questionable quote attributed to Saul Cornell

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted and was later followed by the collective rights viewpoint.[41]

While this may be the authors opinion, it does not seem to agree with historcal fact. The article currently has a quote from John Adams showing that the individal rights viewpoint was current and in use as of the Revoltion. It must therefore have pre-date the Revolution. As currently reading, the article includes the following

John Adams, lead defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, stated at the trial:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence

As the Saul Cornell quote seems obviously in error, it should be deleted from the article. I will wait a week or so before doing it myself in order to give people time to muster any objections to that deletion. Hopeflly the article will not go back to being protected in that time fame.

Please do not use as an objection the lack of trials on this issue durig the early years of the United States. During those years all militia memberswere REQUIRED to own firemarms per the Second Militia Act of 1792

From wiki article on that Act

Second Militia Act of 1792 The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

From the above it can be clearly seen that gun control laws were not an issue duing those years.

The quote I wish remove should be furter replaced by somethig along the lines of, The individual rights viewpoint pre-dated the Revolutionary War and the writting of the Constitution. I cite the John Adams quote reerenced above as sufficient backing for this change.141.154.72.56 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let any man man who obects to the above proposed change state it now or forever hold his peace!141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted incaccurate quote from Cornell described above and and replaced it with a more historically accurate version.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected abbreviation of BATF (old abreviation) to ATF (the current abreviation).141.154.110.178 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment and gun control

The article suffers from a total lack of discussion the Second Amendment in relation to gun control. (While the article manages to mention the term "individual right(s)" fifteen times.) Clearly, a section in the article should be added to discuss the relationship for gun control, and firearm legislation vis a vis the Second Amendment. The threshold should be significant views that have been published by reliable sources. See for instance webpages discussing this relationship[26]. Also, many reliable source books address this aspect of the 2A topic[27]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Marksmanship clearly doesn't belong in this article. This article is about the Second Amendment, not target shooting. Yaf (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And what is your point? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i believe his point is that the term "gun control" is ambiguous and imprecise, and such terms have no place in an encyclopedia. perhaps you were referring to legislative restrictions on access to firearms? Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you then also believe that the term "individual right" is also ambiguous and imprecise? <smile> (and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia?) <smile> When I say "gun control" I am speaking of the concept of "It is well settled that the right is not unqualified, but is subject to the police power of the States." The fact that the article dwells on the term "individual right(s)" more than a dozen times, and neglects to mention the police power of the state to enact gun control legislatively is evidence of the WP:NPOV problem with this article and this should be fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anastrophe was exactly right, here, regarding my intended point. "Gun control" is very imprecise. It can mean being a marksman, as I identified, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It can also mean the power of a police state to disarm individuals, from a recognized right that is protected in the Second Amendment, for precluding citizens from defending against a tyrannical government. "Gun control" is also a pejorative term in many circles for assuming that somehow it is better for a woman to be raped in a dark alley rather than to defend herself and violate the rights of a criminal rapist to ply his trade. As for "individual right" vs. "gun control", there is a much more important reason for the difference in coverage. In Heller, the Supreme Court held in their first statement that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.”(See Heller decision.) There was no holding for "gun control" that was mentioned in the holdings in Heller. As for “gun control” discussions in Heller, there is a little discussion in the Heller transcript of "gun control", but even in the dissent of Judge Breyer on p. 38 of Heller, he states, "...it seems unlikely that the Framers thought about urban gun control at all." Being that this is an article about an historical Amendment to the Constitution, why should we inject any inordinate amount of modern discussion regarding "gun control" into the article beyond what is there now? This would only inject unbalancing POV into the article, achieving a noticeable unbalancing of NPOV within the article. Injecting any advocacy or "hope" of transforming America into a police state through disarmament of citizenry is not a worthwhile "change" that should be made to the article. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, your personal opinion and original research do not belong on the talk page. I provided reliable and credible sourcing that "It is well settled that the right is not unqualified, but is subject to the police power of the States". This meets WP:V standards. Agreed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that the police power can't take away personal and property righs protected by the various State and Federal Constitutions. Any law enaced that is contrary to Constitutonal language is null and void. Pesonally I would like to see the people voting to pass these types of laws prosecuted as the felons that they are. Anyone voting to pass laws contrary to Constitutional language is commiting breach of the oath of office and therefore perjury of such. Perjury is a felony!

Hey! I can dream can't I?141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arzberger is an Eighth Amendment case

Yaf's recent insertion of the US v Arzberger is related to the topic of this article only distantly remote, because that case is an Eighth Amendment case. Yaf's present wording is ambiguous and implies that the dicta mention of Heller amounts to a holding, which it does not. This is a WP:SYN and WP:POV problem that needs to be fixed. SaltyBoatr SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

US v. Arzberger is a very important case. It is also an important interpretation of what Heller says the Second Amendment means. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds to claim WP:SYN and WP:POV falsely exist and to remove properly cited content that is clearly on-topic. And, before you accuse it of being such, this was not a "pro-gun" edit. Rather, it is an important interpretation of the Second Amendment that clearly belongs in this article, especially being a very recent holding. Yaf (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arzberger is an Eight Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. The relation of it to Heller is tangential. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No reply from Yaf. Though I am guessing that when Yaf says "clearly on topic" that Yaf erroneously holds a misconception that the topic of this article is "Right to keep and bear arms" rather than the Second Amendment. These related topics are not the same. Arzberger is a very interesting case which says that the right to firearms is not allowed to be forfeited as bail, but on Eighth Amendment grounds and not on Second Amendment grounds. This belongs in other articles, and is off topic here. Certainly the Eighth Amendment article, and the RTKBA article and perhaps also it should be included in the Heller article because Heller is mentioned? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment in Arzberger. There is also considerable interpretation of what Heller means in terms of the meaning of the Second Amendment in Arzberger, in what is becoming a rather large break with much prior judicial practice regarding interpretation of the Second Amendment. For these reasons, it is clearly on topic. Also, please do not attack other editors and assume you understand all editors' "misconceptions", as you so crudely put it. To assume you alone can contribute to this article or that you alone can interpret other editor's edits, motives, and "misconceptions" is arrogance of the worst kind. Such attitude borders on being a personal attack, and, at the very least, contributes to an elitist, exclusionary attitude against other editors that drives many potential knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. Such arrogance and attitude have no place on Wikipedia. Please discuss the article, not other editors' motives, "misconceptions", or similar, on the talk pages. Arzberger is clearly on-topic for the reasons that have been stated. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Arzberger is an Eight Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A few items from Arzberger - Looks like Second Amendment stuff to me - Don't like the fact that this judge thinks that the Second Amendent "created" a right instead of "protecting" a pre existing right, but I can live with it!

A year ago, I might well have taken for granted the authority of Congress to require that a person charged with a crime be prohibited from possessing a firearm as a condition of pretrial release.... [But, given D.C. v. Heller, t]o the extent ... that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.

Accordingly, the Adam Walsh Amendments [the name of the statute involved here -EV] violate due process by requiring that, as a condition of release on bail, an accused person be required to surrender his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm without giving that person an opportunity to contest whether such a condition is reasonably necessary in his case to secure the safety of the community. Because the Amendments do not permit an individualized determination, they are unconstitutional on their face. The Government's application to impose as a condition of bail that Mr. Arzberger not possess a firearm is therefore denied....

141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, a case can be about more than one law. Arberger seems to be about the Second and Eighth Amendments. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The holding is about the Eighth Amendment. The non-binding dicta mentions the Second Amendment. The real issue is that the court recognizes that the right to firearms is an individual right and therefore is not allowed to be forfeited as bail. "individual right to firearms" does not equal "Second Amendment". The dicta mentions Heller as precedence that the right to firearms is an individual right. That is tangentially related to the Second Amendment, but the case is an Eight Amendment ruling. Again, and again and again, editors are loading in tangential "individual right" references, now sixteen times that I see. This agenda violates the undue balance policy. This contributes to the WP:NPOV balance problem with the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arzberger is an Eighth Amendment case decided on Fifth and Second Amendment grounds. It also represents a radical shift in judicial interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Specifically, pages 22 through 25 of the transcript on Arzberger (United States v. Arzberger) provide a detailed discussion of the new judicial meaning of the Second Amendment coming as a result of Heller. Slightly more than tangential mention of the Second Amendment, it is obvious. Three complete pages of Arzberger are on nothing but the Second Amendment. This detailed interpretation of the Second Amendment, being that it is a huge change in judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment due to Heller, clearly belongs in this article, under the post-Heller fallout. 163.205.105.46 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between obiter dicta and rationes decidendi? Plainly, the push to insert Arzberger into the article serves to shift the balance of the article further towards an "individual right" point of view through the use of non-binding tangential comment of the judge. This is an example of the WP:UNDUE problem with the article. Notice that attention is paid to one Eighth Amendment case favorable to the 'individual rights' hypothesis, even though this case mentions the Second Amendment only as an aside. Yet no mention is made of the scores of lower federal court Second Amendment cases ruled upon since Heller that happen to not be favorable to the same hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, are you claiming the reference to the Second Amendment in Arzberger was not necessary to the decision in that case? That's what obiter dicta means. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The mention of the Second Amendment was not binding, and the mention of the Second Amendment has no weight of precedence on other courts. See Stare decisis. Put another way, mentions of the Second Amendment in dicta, belongs in the trivia section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that the meaning of the Second Amendment according to Heller is ratio. Meaning, it is a direct reason for the holding. With a proper understanding of the ratio of a precedent, an advocate can in effect force a lower court to come to a decision which that court may otherwise be unwilling to make, considering the facts of the case. In Arzberger, both the 5A and the 2A figured in the holding. The reason behind the decision is not dicta. It is ratio. And, it is entirely appropriate here, being this is the article on the Second Amendment. On the other hand, the minority or dissent in Heller is dicta, which by your logic should be stripped from Wikipedia. This would include the snide comments from the dissent in Heller. Likewise for the lesser interpretation of the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment discussed in Heller, being it was only discussed in the dissent, which automatically makes it dicta. By your reasoning, they should all go. Is this really what you advocate? Yaf (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire threatens to secede from the Union over gun rights

and other matters

This and similar items may have a place in the article. Another state, I believe Montana, made a similar threat against the US Government prior to the Heller decision on contractual grounds. The organization known as the "United States" being in fact a "subcontractor" to the States who have subcontracted a number of power to that organization. That threat may have influenced the Supreme Court to rule as it did on Heller.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the part that sounds like a reference to secession:

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government

Are you suggesting this should be added to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that, but I don't insist on it. The fact that two states, Montana and New Hampshire, have threatened to secede from the Union over unconstitutional federal gun control laws is at least of SOME importance.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Has this resolution been passed by the NH State Legislature? SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. From what I can see it was introduced in he Year of Our Lord 2009. Considering the slow pace of Legislation and the fact that this is only February of that year I would not take any bets that it has passed. It probably is still in Committee. If it does pass I would say that NH need only wait a month or two before declaring that it has valid grounds for secession. These days just about everything out of Washington is unconstitutional in some way.

To quote Kissinger

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. Henry Kissinger, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

That little longer has now passed!141.154.72.56 (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless this resolution is passed by the New Hampshire General Court, it isn't noteworthy. However, it is interesting (to me at least). SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is somethig to keep an eye on.141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Added material on what constitutes a "well regulated militia"

I previously objected to the large amount of space dedicated to the phrase "to bear arms" when the phrase showing up is "to keep and bear arms". If a phrase not showing up in the Amendment can have such a large amount of space dedicated to it, then certainly the much misunderstood phase "well regulated" can claim a small amount of space in the article in order to lessen that misunderstanding.141.154.72.56 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "well regulated" deserves coverage, but using credible secondary sources. But the way you gave coverage, by directly excerpting from the Federalists Papers is a form of original research and violates the WP:NOR policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you didn't have anything to say about quoting Hamilton when his quote was the only one not deleted in the "adoption" section a few month back. Anyway quoting historical figures is acceptable per wiki rules. Please go bark up another tree! Better yet, if you disagree with the quote, do some work and find another historical figure from the same period who defined the term differently. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The key seems to be finding a consensus for the form a "well regulated" section or subsection would take. Consensus needs to be found before such material is added to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice consesus was not reached when the quotes from Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, among others, were deleted from the "Adoption" section a few mnths back. I posted a NAY to that move so I can't see how a consensus was reached. Again, if the phrase "to bear arms", which does not show up within the Second Amendment can claim half a page of the article, then the term "well-regulated" which does appear, can certainly claim a paragraph. As finding a consensus with Salty Boatr involve the wholesale surrender of each and every position he disagrees with it is NOT going to happen on this issue. The Hamilton quote is clear and to the point on what constitutes a well regulated militia. If a better one comes along then it can either be added or the Hamilton quote can be replaced. Until that time I believe the Hamilton quote shoud stay.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the George Mason quote is the one remaining quote in the Adoption section, not Alexander Hamilton. As the editor who removed most of those quotations, I took the view that the extensive quotations that existed therein did constitute original research. Moreover, they added great length to an already overlong article. In truth, we should be discussing ways to do more pruning-Adding more material about what constitutes a well regulated militia seems to be the kind of tangent that is already too common here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a part of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Not a quote. Why don't you go back a few months or so and check out the job YOU did and see whose quote YOU left, Mr. The article is too big and I will downsize it no matter what anyone else sez!141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article length

At almost 9,000 words, this is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia, almost double the length of the First Amendment article, for instance. Does anyone else see sections to be pruned, or have reasons that I shouldn't prune the article that aren't based in petty name calling? Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

you're mistaken. the readable prose of the article is currently 5384 words. i'd be interested to know where you derived the opinion that it is "one of the longest articles on wikipedia". it is a hotly contested amendment, thus leading to greater material focused on the subject matter. the article for the third amendment is only 558 words. why is that not your benchmark? there is no need to 'prune' the article. i see no objective measure that justifies doing so. Anastrophe (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

and for the record, the readable prose of the first amendment article is 5027 words. your claim is hyperbole. (to easily find page size info, see User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js Anastrophe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The references section contains large amounts of readable prose, quotes and editorial commentary, and does indeed contribute to the length of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

that may be. but the prosesize tool displays article size based upon the formal WP guidelines, and on that basis, the article does not even approach being 'one of the longest articles on wikipedia', and no objective basis has been provided to justify shortening it. again, if the articles on other amendments are ostensibly some sort of measure, then why isn't the third amendment the benchmark? the answer should be obvious. Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the guideline then: WP:SIZE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

correct. and it supports what i just wrote, in all respects. note also that Special:LongPages (linked to in the size guideline), which lists the top 1000 longest articles on wikipedia, does not include the second amendment article. so, at this point, we have a lot of sound and fury claiming that this is one of the largest articles on wikipedia, and the quiet fact that it is not, nor does it even need trimming to meet the guidelines. there is no objective basis for shortening this article. there is reasonable reason to refine the article and make it more readable; that is not license to remove material from the article merely for the sake of shortening it. this matter is effectively closed. Anastrophe (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it needs to get bigger. Among other things, the current article is missing any mention of the fact that the militia is a legal body defined both by US and state laws, and that the Amendment was in fact designed to forbid "ANY" exercise of federal power designed to disarm the militia or any member thereof. A definition of the word "infringe" and how it is used in patent law would also be nice. BTW: The wiki article on the TV show Heroes is about 20 pages (results may vary due to font and screen size), which is about the same size as this article. Does a TV show deserve more space then a Constiutional Amendment? I'd have to say only a boob tube addict would say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article about a television program is too long has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. At 97kb, the article is over double the length of any other constitutional amendment article. It's not just that the article is long; it's that it is rambling and unfocused. Adding a long section on patent law would be ridiculously off topic. I will suggest areas to this cut in this section where it can be discussed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is also about the most disputed Amendment. Including all the various points in dispute takes space. Rambling and unfocused is what you get when a bunch of people with different opinions on what is important keep adding things and disputing items which they disagree with. Add in the occasonal drop in that does a major or minor edit and you what do you expect to get?

Perhaps another way to say it is that the article is bloated with editors making the points. The article consists of dueling points of view, with the balance point set by a systemic bias reflecting editors advocacy agendas. I believe that it the article were rewritten in balanced tone it would be much shorter. I doubt there is a good reason that the word "individual" needs to be mentioned forty-seven times. Obviously, there is a political agenda among some editors to make sure that everybody believes that the Second Amendment is synonymous with the gun rights slogan termed "individual rights". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article was rewritten to a much smaller sise then a multitude of editors, me included, would descend on it to flesh out points that they considered important and in short order the article would be back to its large messy self. I suggest you learn to live with it.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Post Heller court cases

For some reason, Yaf deleted three short paragraphs describing important post-heller court cases. Lets discuss this if need be. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They were removed because: Wikipedia is not a list, these are not Second Amendment cases related to the topic of article, & the content was clearly unsourced (being that blogs are not a reliable source). If there are reliable sources that claim some of these are Second Amendment cases, then those cases that are Second Amendment cases clearly should be here. But, citing with blogs and conflating firearms legislation litigation somehow with the Second Amendment is not a reason for the unsourced content to be here. Until these concerns are addressed, the list of firearms cases occurring post-Heller should be removed. Yaf (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Have removed same. Issues must be addressed before blog-based commentary is re-inserted into article. Yaf (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning appears contrived to disproportionately remove mention of court cases that ruled against your personal point of view. In fact, all those three cases made rulings based on the Heller precedent. Also, the Volokh.com website that Yaf disparages as a "blog" has been used as sourcing as recently as yesterday by Yaf[28]. Is it that this website is only credible when it supports your personal point of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing Volokh's Blog commentary with archives of Court rulings, both of which can be found on his website. Putting in a courtesy link to a court case transcript used as source, that just happens to link to a pdf stored on Volokh's website, is not the same as attempting to do sourcing to the Blog portion of his website, which as stated previously, is not a reliable source. Attacking an editor through ascribing motives is a personal attack, that is not permitted on Wikipedia. You have been around long enough on Wikipedia to know better than this, on both not using blogs as sources, and also in not making personal attacks. Yaf (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When you add a case, at a minimum, add a legal citation. Such a citation does not need to link to a website. Doing that will make it much harder for that case to be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did not ascribe motive, I instead described an appearance of bias in Yaf's actions. Notice that Yaf does not deny bias in his actions. The appearance of bias remains clear. Also, the Volokh Conspiracy group webblog appears to be reliable and topical. See this link[29] about the Mullinex case. If Yaf is seriously denying this cite meets WP:RS, then I request that we discuss Yaf's reasoning in more detail. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From footnote 5 of the verifiability page:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Under the above quoted material, is there any way for The Volokh Conspiracy to be considered verifiable and a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The information about Mullenix found at Volokh is corroborated by the discussion of that same case in the Harvard Law Review article, see my recent edit. Also, the Volokh group blog includes writings of pre-eminent scholars, so if the posting can be reliably corroborated (as is true in this case), the website does meet WP:RS standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, you should post content sourced not to a blog, but to a reliable source. Then, there is no issue. As for the appearance of bias, I previously stated: "If there are reliable sources that claim some of these are Second Amendment cases, then those cases that are Second Amendment cases clearly should be here." The issue here is about sourcing to other than blogs; it is not about bias. Being that you presume bias, though, you are not assuming good faith, which, as you know, is something that you should have learned on Wikipedia by now, considering your long history. The constant sniping at other editors, the continuous assumption of bad faith, and the never-ending WP:OWN issues all need to stop. They are not conducive to achieving Wikipedia's goals, and increasing the quality of articles. They also don't help you in making your case(s). Yaf (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, your actions belie your statements. Why did you delete the content twice instead of adding a {{fact}} tag? The Dorosan and Mullenix cases are in the public record, and my edit simply described their existence and gave a brief summary of easily confirmed details about these two important cases. Why did you quickly delete them, twice, in quick succession? The appearance of your tendency to edit war and you personal bias remains. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the right section has NPOV problem

Very high up in the article is footnote 3 which points to a prominent gun rights article[30]. I am not questioning that this is a valid POV, but I am objecting that presentation of the dominant gun rights POV as "fact". This violates WP:NPOV policy. In fairness, the "origin of the right" also includes the British history and Colonial history of a citizens duty of militia service, see for instance the Joyce Lee Malcolm book[31] for more on this. And, to be accurate, the article should speak of the ongoing debate about the 'origin of the right' because the origin is subject to debate[32] as opposed to being a settled fact, as the article erroneously suggests. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Per you link, the article was not original to that site but only referenced by it. By the same reasoning, if Heller was referenced by that site, then Heller could not be used in the article. Your objection seems to be without any substance! Personally I think the origin of the right occured when some long ago ancestor figured out he could carry a stick around to beat up on things. Of course, it may have been a rock instead.141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not. Gun rights concepts and articles found on guncite.org are disproportionately represented in this 2A article, like with footnote 3. This is an indicatation the systemic bias problem with the article, which disproportionately reflects and echos the point of view found on anonymous gun rights blogs and websites. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So what! Gun right concepst are the ones proteced by the Second Amendment. If you want equal time, get you Congressman and the various states to pass an Anti-Second Amendment. But that would be another article, so even then you'd be out of luck.141.154.72.56 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Robertson v. Baldwin

In Robertson v. Baldwin, Mr. Robertson and three other seamen claimed that federal maritime laws violated the fifth and thirteenth amendments (at p. 276), their petition did not mention the Second Amendment. They had been arrested for jumping ship and defaulting on their contract. The Court's comments about rights, as not being absolute, were dicta. These analogous comments were intended to illustrate that the prohibition of "involuntary servitude" in the 13th Amendment was not a defense when one defaults on a voluntarily signed contract. Such Court side-comments are defined as "dicta" when: "Opinions of a judge are not a central part of the judge's decision even if the judge argues them strongly and even if they look like conclusions. One way to decide whether a particular part of a judge's opinion is dicta is to examine whether it was necessary to reach the result. If it could be removed without changing the legal result, it is probably dicta. If it is dicta, it is not bindingprecedent (see that word) on later court decisions, but it is probably still worth quoting if it helps your case" (Law Dictionary, by Daniel Oran, J.D. (1975)). The Robertson Court's Second Amendment comment, unsupported by any case-law precedent, and unrelated to the issue before the Court, was thus dicta and not binding on any subsequent court's decision. Stating that Robertson "held" is thus incorrect. (Truwik (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Read the case and agree that there is an issue on how this case is represented in the article. The language on concealed weapons was not part of the decision and looks like it is part of the judges "opinion" and not his "judgement". As an opinion it has no place under the case law section as it is not part of a case ruling. The judge does not even quote prior case law to support this opinion. That is standard when part of a "judgement". While this language can certainly be included in another portion of the article, I don't believe that it belongs under "case law".141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have cleaned up the text, to make it clear that it is dicta and not ratio, and restored same. Yaf (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments

I object that my comments on this talk page have been repeatedly deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re US v Walters

I was under the impression that the 1,000 foot gun ban around schools was struck down in US v Lopez. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The alleged crime in Walters took place in the Virgin Islands, which is not a state and therefore under the management of the feds. Per the Constitution, the fed have the power to manage nonstate US possessions, but Lopez probably still applies. The defense doesn't quote Lopez in the document referenced and may not even be aware of the case. Don't know if the current version of 922(q) is the same as the one used in Lopez, but the Supreme Court nullified the totality of that section of law per "§ 922(q) is invalid" when they made their ruling.

From Lopez

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Congress repassed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1996, but added a provision stating that it would only be in effect to the extent permissible by the Commerce Clause. Source SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read of Lopez, the extent permissible is zero.141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be permissible (1) if the crossing of State borders is involved, (2) the action occurs within an area under federal authority, but no State authority or (3) whenever the action "substantially affects" interstate commerce (quoting Lopez). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following still sounds like zero to me. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined.. I will however agree that there may be some substance to item 2 above, as the feds do have the power to manage nonstate US territories. However, there is still the issue of the Second Amendment ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which applies to all US residents, whether they are inhabitants of one of the states or not.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An example of item 1 is the Mann Act. A recent example of item 3 is Gonzales v. Raich. As for the Second Amendment, that would be a very interesting case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Iffy examples a best and in at least one respect contradictory. Neither of your examples has to do with guns and a gun free school zone. Prostitution is at least a commercial activity, but rarely involves crossing state borders. It is also legal in Nevada. Gonzales and the harassment of those smoking pot under a medical prescription within States that allow it is garbage. Using the same reasoning for Gonzales the feds could harass prostitutes in Nevada.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are not my opinion. I'm giving examples based on Supreme Court case law. SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see how those examples apply to a gun free school zone. A purchaser and/or owner of a gun already in state has no interstate commerce issues, since he is not engaged in commerce. This is pretty much what the Supreme Court said on Lopez.141.154.72.56 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP edit war

This edit war[33] needs to be resolved on the talk page. Deletion of well sourced material by Professor Cornell and insertion of personal opinion and original research, not per policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article currently references the possession of guns as an individual right during the trial for the Boston Massacre. Cornell states that this "indvidual right" theory was first used in court sometime after the Revolutionary War. Therefore Cornell is historically inaccurate and blows monkey balls! Plainly inaccurate opinion does not have a place in the article.

The fact that the "collective right" theory originated a century after the Revolutionatry War and coincided with the expansion of the feds into law enforcement is historically accurate.

From a letter by the Montana Secratery of State to the Supreme Court re: Heller

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

and since you like to bitch about people deleting your posts, why did you delete my recent post to you pointing out that I had asked for any objections, waited a week for them and that you had not objected?

I believe that makes this is the second time you deleted a post of mine. Are you somehow "Special" and therefore allowed to delete other peoples posts on the discussion page?141.154.72.56 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing article space with talk space? Different standards apply. In the case of your edit to the article space [34] which appears to be entirely based on your personal opinion, I am asking you to point to reliable secondary sourcing for your idea. Also, I am objecting to your removal of the passage based on the book by Saul Cornell. While you may personally disagree with the book by Saul Cornell, it meets the standards at Wikipedia for inclusion in the article, and your deletion is unfounded in Wikipedia policy. Regarding talk page comments, it is generally considered bad etiquette among Wikipedia editors to delete or modify other editors comments on the talk pages. These two standards, article space versus talk page space, are entirely different.

That said, I am waiting for your WP:V justification of your edit[35]. Without your adequate response, I will be editing article shortly. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to respond on my "new" computer/internet connection and found out it had been blocked. Pretty sneaky (biggest understatement so far this year) of you to get me banned and THEN ask for an answer, knowing I couldn't respond. Only thing is, my old internet connection and computer still work, so here it is

1)In response to your WP:V please check the John Adams quote under the "English Common Law " section. It seems to be well referenced. My addition that the "individual rights" viewpoint was current as of the Revolutionary War follows from that quote. Do you wish to deny that the Boston Massacre was prior to the Revolutionary War and do I need to find a reference for that for you?

2)Previously I pointed out a number of issues with Saul Cornell's book that indicated it is NOT well referenced and likely contains many errors, not least of which is the authors pushing of an "civic right" viewpoint. A viewpoint which has never existed outside the authors mind, and which has never been examined in court. And considering the ruling on Heller this viewpoint will NEVER be examined in a court of law. His views are therefore at least PARTLY unsupported and NOT well referenced.

3)Regarding the timing of the emergence of the collective rights viewpoint, it did in fact emerge in concert with the feds going into the law enforcement business during the late 1800's. I believe that even Saul Cornell agrees with that. If it makes you feel better I can insert a quote from the above letter from the Montana Secretary of State as an indication that the collective right viewpoint did not exist as of 1889. I personally don't see the need, but if you do I will certainly endeavor to please you.

4)Lastly, the following quote "In 1886, the Supreme Court, in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois, found that the states had no power to regulate interstate commerce. The resulting Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created a Federal responsibility for interstate law enforcement." appears on the wiki article for the FBI and is quoted almost verbatum in my change. If you have an issue with it please confront the editors for the FBI article. Should they agree to make a change in response to your complaints I have no objections to making a corresponding change in this article.

and try no to get me banned under this computer. It will reflect REALLY REALLY badly on your character if I have to borrow a friends computer in order to make a response.4.154.232.6 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Now I can post with the new computer/internet conection. Nice job covering your tracks!68.160.131.97 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is just gun rights propaganda and conspiracy theory. The charges come from gun rights advocate David Hardy who is funded by the NRA. Cornell did not have editorial control over either the Fordham Law Review or Stanford Law and Policy journals. Student editors would have never ceded such authority. This article is filled with references to Don Kates and Halbrook, both of whom are full time gun rights advocates. Nelson Lund has an NRA funded chair. Joyce Lee Malcolm has taken money from conservative think tanks. Heller's appeal was funded by Robert Levy at CATO. The simple fact is that gun control and gun rights supporters both fund research. If anything gun control is out spent by about 100 to 1. Anyway, this is all silly. Either the arguments in print are historically sound or not. This is not a place to conduct a gun rights propaganda campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute in this section is whether a small change I made to the article can be esily verified. Do I need to provide a link to convince you that the Boston Masacre happened prior to the Revolutionary War and therefore prior to the debates on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? As for the rest of the change I certainly have no objection to you disputing the wording of the FBI article, just do it there and not here. Once the wording there is changed I have no objection to changing the wording here to match.

On authors

Kates is referenced once

Halbrook twice

Lund once

Malcolm is not referenced at all

For comparrison, there is an L. Levy showing as having been mentionen in Heller within one of the Footnotes but no matterial in the article is cited to him. Don't see any reference ar all to a Robert Levy.

There are 7 references to Cornell in the footnotes. Looks like 1 gun control advocate can claim more space then 3 gun right advocates. Looks fishy! Do you agree?

It's a sad day for gun control when all you can muster for references is a guy that got paid $400,000 to write up the party line.68.163.104.5 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Heller the historians brief was signed by a dozen of the top experts in early American constitutional history. You seem to be unaware of the scholarship of Jack Rakove, Paul Finkelman, and David Konig. If you want additional evidence look at Uviller and Merkel's book. Robert Levy was the money behind the Heller case.Philo-Centinel (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue

Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.

Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-joyce-foundations-attempt-to-abolish-the-second-amendment-with-the-help-of-barack-obama/

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center. Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf

Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"

the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"

When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen

Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.

Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias? See WP:V and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.

BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?

BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.

WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences? The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue. SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial. Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem. THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.

There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.

And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.

Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.

Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?

RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-)

Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?

Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that

http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf

Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php

From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php

Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?

As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--

Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.

At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.

Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!

Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?

Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!

Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.

One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?

Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.

In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.

Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.

FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.

Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.

I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows

it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.

Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,

in the dissent

about Negro millitias after the Civil War!

In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.

Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional POV bias issue - Chicago-Kent Law Review Issue 76

Per above POV bias issue regarding the Joyce Foundation, that Foundation bought up an issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review and filled it with paid for and therefore biased articles that supported the Joyce Foundation gun control party line.

The current article cites 3 different articles from Ken Law Review #76 with all 3 being anti "individual rights"

per the following link it looks like that is the issue bought and paid for by the Foundation

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

Law review symposia

Joyce funded a symposium at Chicago Kent in which Carl Bogus served at editor.

Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)

Two other issues were funded by Joyce but all editorial decisions were made by student editors as is the standard in most law reviews. Cornell did not edit or even write an introduction for either issue.

Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004) Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006,

Since bought and paid for opinions are by definition biased I will have a POV issue with the article as long as material from issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review is cited in the article. This POV bias issue is similar to the NRA and Brady Campaign bias issues.

With their strong opinions regarding bias and article size I again believe that I have the complete support of Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 to delete this biased and unreliable material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The above material (the previous section and not the above altered complaint) has been altered by Philo-Centinel to hide the JOYCE FOUNDATION AND SAUL CORNELL relationship. The edit happened at 19:06 and anyone looking at history can see the before and after change.

Again the above has been altered - My original complaint follows for those that do not want to check page history - readers will notice that Saul Cornel did in fact work hand in glove with Joyce in 2006 as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Standard Law and Policy Review. That is the year his Second Amendment book was published. I believe that book has a RELIABILITY issue as described in the previous section.

Unaltered version of my complaint now follows

Per above POV bias issue regarding the Joyce Foundation, that Foundation bought up an issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review and filled it with paid for and therefore biased articles that supported the Joyce Foundation gun control party line.

The current article cites 3 different articles from Ken Law Review #76 wih all 3 being anti "individual rights"

per the following link it looks like that is the issue bought and paid for by the Foundation

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

Law review symposia

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

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

Since bought and paid for opinions are by definition biased I will have a POV issue with the article as long as material from issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review is cited in the article. This POV bias issue is similar to the NRA and Brady Campaign bias issues.

With their strong opinions regarding bias and article size I again believe that I have the complete support of Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 to delete this biased and unreliable material. ;-) 68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IS this a serious effort or merely an outlet for propaganda and conspiracy theories? If this gun rights propaganda is to be believed Joyce paid Bogus to prop up the collective rights view and then turned around and paid Cornell to debunk it. This simply makes no sense. Cornell's book attacks the collective rights theory as much as the individual rights theory. Have people not read it? Joyce like any foundation funds research that it thinks will be of high quality and then it has to live with the results. Joyce also funded research by Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig that questioned the impact of the Brady Law. Does this suggest that they are really engaged in buying research? All of this logic is circular. It assumes facts about Joyce that are not borne out by the record, imputes motives without evidence, and relies on gun rights web sites for its conspiracy theory. There is a reason why schools do not allow wikipedia as a valid source for research reports and this discussion is a prime example.

AS far as edits go. The discussion about presidential views is out of place and adds little to the discussion. I deleted it because my high school history teacher would have seen that it does not belong at the end of an article. In general this article is wordy, poorly organized, and ideologically biased. Volokh's claims about no evidence for a non-militia right are contradicted by Bishop. Adding Volokh is purely an ideological move with no place in this essay. Tushnet is right. Anyone on either side of this debate who claims that the other side has no evidence to support their view is blowing smokePhilo-Centinel (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that due to your deliberate alteration to this complaint yesterday to hide evidence of Cornells ties to Joyce in 2006 that I do not accept complaints from you to be in good faith. Your are dead to me! Get lost!

BTW: The only use for your posts is the names of authors who I will be checking for ties to Joyce, The Brady Camaign and other gun control groups. Have a nice day!68.163.104.5 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits/revert

I recently reverted a series of edits by Philo-Centinel, the following is an explanation of some of the reasons why I reverted it.

1. The edits introduced weasel worded entries such as: "Some scholars believe this"
2. The edits removed reliably sourced material that is pertinent to the discussion of the second amendment with an edit summary of "this is really not necessary".
3. Replaced other sourced information with unsourced commentary such as "As is true for nearly every aspect of this debate scholarship is divided over how to interpret this case law."

I do not believe these edits were constructive to the article so I reverted them. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed some additional comments by Philo-Centinel. These comments appear to be either original research or just some personal comments. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Based upon his unethical behavior, I support the removal of any and all changes to the article made by Philo-Centinel.68.163.104.5 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)