Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

NPOV problems (cont. March '09)

I agree with tc2011, the article shouldn't start with "most contested," readers looking for a pleasant neutral lead-in would read no further. And saying the 2A "protects a right," by itself, could be misconstrued. Protects the right from whom? At a glance, the article appears to be about the "right to keep and bear arms" and the controversy over it. I suggest this:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that proects the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. Rights are inalienable, but the Founding Fathers feared some future Congress might misconstrue the powers that were delegated, and use them to regulate, or even confiscate, their arms.

That's historical fact, and would be more reassuring. The key word in the amendment is 'infringed' not 'right,' putting it in, right up front, would encourage first-time visitors to read further. (Truwik (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm more hard core then you are, so while I'm OK with your first sentence I would prefer something like, "The Founding Fathers by protecting the right to keep and bear arms, placed a roadblock to future tyrants by insuring then the citizenry would have the means to resist them through the use of their personal arms" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This suggested 'future tyrants...resist them through us of arms' is no doubt language the Founders used concerning the King of Great Britain's "War against us" which eventually required a Declaration of Independence and war against them. But the first U.S. Congress wasn't viewed from that perspective, many were veterans of that war, some were Founders, and they all knew the amendment wasn't directed at them personally. It was a stern reminder to future federal 'tyrants' that they were not to encroach upon that right. The words chosen were what the Framers actually said about the amendment's purpose - words from-the-horse's-mouth so to speak. (Truwik (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

The Founding fathers were quote aware that one day Congress could turn tyrannical. They were quite aware that human nature is such that at some point SOMEONE (or a group of someones) will try a power grab (most likely by means of slow encroachment) unless there are roadblocks in place to stop him (or them) and that one of those roadblocks was the private possession of arms. Patrick Henry for instance talks about a revolution where "the enemy" is the federal government.

"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison

"The concentrating these [legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." Thomas Jefferson

Experience [has shown] that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of nobilie spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. - Fayetteville NC Gazette 10-12-1789

The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.? Patric Henry68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen, and Amen! I would suggest that this Article needs a Section Heading: "Constitutional Convention" with sub-Sections "Why many Founders opposed a Bill of Rights" and "Why some Refused to Ratify the Constitution Without One", etc. (Truwik (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that that the article needs more material with respect to the ratification conventions. At one point it did have that material, but when the article was downsized most of it went away. Funny how relevant material gets cut on a regular basis, but crap like the Ward trial remained. You'd almost think that someone was trying to control the articles content. ;-) 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In January, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 45 (the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act). The bill honored 16-year-old Blair Holt, who was killed on May 10, 2007 when he shielded a female classmate from gunfire on a Chicago city bus - with his own body - a real hero. The bill requires registration of all firearms in the U.S.; new purchases of firearms would require a federal license, with a photo ID, and a thumbprint, which could be revoked for a number of reasons. Training for firearm ownership, with a fee, is required; sale, transfer, loss or theft must be reported within 72 hours; and failure to comply with any of these provisions would result in fines and/or imprisonment. The truly amazing part of this, is that it comes on the heels of Heller, which just held a similar law unconstitutional, on his own turf - a Constitution he swore to uphold and defend - unless "shall not be infringed' means "may almost be destroyed." With such continuing shenanigans, this Article needs a "Stay Tuned - It ain't over..." Section, where we can post the latest intrigue. Mr. Rush's bill is still in committee. (Truwik (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

All becomes understandable if you take the view that those in powe aren't there to serve and protect, but to feather their nests at your expense. Feathering the nest includes going on a power trip and taking your stuff. As usual, criminals would rather rob you when you aren't able to defend yourself then when you can. Reducing your chance to get a gun reduces the chance you can effectively resist.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 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[1], 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_ [2], 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[3][4], 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[5], 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[6]. 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 unequivocally 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[7]. 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?[8][9][10][11]. 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))

Composite response: SaltyBoatR quoted the Court: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill...etc." then asked: "Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective 'binding law'"? It isn't, nor was it intended to be. The Court just made a general comment, that the right was not absolute and that reasonable exceptions to it have been longstanding - such as denying the right to the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc., which all states have done, and denying carrying firearms in government buildings, which both state and federal laws have banned. This was not a definition of the right, nor is it precedent. The Court was justifying such state and federal laws that exist.

SMP0328's "U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States..." is not true. Its decisions on the 2A are binding only on the federal government. The 2A is a restriction the states placed upon congress, not on themselves. In Cruikshank, at 553, the Court held: "The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." The Presser Court affirmed that, at 265, with: "the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." As for the statement "Supreme Court decisions are...but aren't to be considered definitive", that's nonsense. The Court, here, was not defining the right it was defining the extent of the amendment's restriction. When the Heller Court used 'protects with the Bill of Rights amendments, it meant protects the right from federal infringement. (See Justice Stevens' dissent, p. 2: "The view of the Amendment we took...history of its adoption." He said the amendment "does not curtail the Legislative power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons..." which was the Court's, and Congress' position prior to Heller. Now, it does curtail "the Legislative power to regulate" such weapons, the Court was very definitive.

SaltyBoatR's "Heller has limited effect on state law" is not true, it has no effect on state law. The 2A can only be violated by Congress.

SMP0328's comparing Heller with Brown v. Board is incongruous. Brown held Kansas' separate but equal school practice was unacceptable - with no constitutional authority to even hear the case - but Kansas obeyed and all states followed suit. Heller was based on a constitutional restriction placed upon Congress, by the states. Heller held that restriction applied to all weapons, not just militia-type, and re-affirmed that the 2A applies only to the federal government.

SaltyBoatR's "if the [state] law is not identical to the DC law, Bill the court must interpret, is likewise not true. From the Bill of Rights' inception to Heller, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" has always been held to apply exclusively to Congress. Applying that to the D.C. law - a territory under federal jurisdiction - did not affect state law. And his "Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land" possibility is also without merit. The case was about the extent of federal infringement, not the right. The 2A does not say "the people have the right...", it says " the right of the people [which existed before the federal government was created by the states] shall not be infringed", and that means "it shall not be infringed by Congress"(Cruikshank,Presser, etc.)

SMP0328's "Heller ruled that an individual had a right...without having to be a member of any State's militia." Heller held that the 2A's restriction "shall not be infringed" applies also to individual type weapons as well as militia type. That is, the 2A's restriction on the federal government now applies to all types of weapons. The Court didn't discover a new right - the right pre-existed - they expanded the restriction to include all weapons. SMP0328 then asked: "Where in the Heller decision did...the...Court say the 2A protected State militias?" It didn't. The Court and Congress have always agreed that the 2A forbids infringement on militia-type weapons. Nothing in the decision changed that. All these what-ifs and conjectures have no place in the Second Amendment Article. The proper forum for such would be in Wikipedia Article: Right to keep and bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

I described 7 points of POV problems at the top of this section, and those problems all remain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, Truwik appears to disagree with SaltyBoatr and me. SMP0328. (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with truwik. The right to keep and bear arms was a pre-existing right prior to the Constitution and Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right and does not create it. In fact the militiamen at Concord and Lexington elected their own leaders, and Washington first job when getting new militia units, was to try to get the elected officers of those units to behave more like officers. So prior to the Constitution not only did the right to keep and bear arms exist, but also the right to forms companies of armed men under the elected leaders of the men in those companies. This companies not only bore personal arms but also kept artillery. The British went after Concord and Lexington in order to get the artillery and other equipment of the militia companies of those towns.

http://www.geocities.com/mwinthrop/majpit5.html

You will seize and destroy all the artillery, ammunition, provisions, tents, small arms, and all military stores whatever.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Minutemen-(militia)

The Minutemen were usually 25 years of age or younger, and they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and strength. They were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle. Officers were elected by popular vote, and each unit drafted a formal written covenant to be signed upon enlistment.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=50913

Just as the British had, he saw "stupidity" among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.

and what the second amendment is REALLY about - at end of clip. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

If I knew where she lived I'd propose! Assuming some lucky guy hasn't already snagged her.4.154.252.183 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This addresses SaltyBoatR's eight POV problems from the law POV.

1) Not sure what is meant by 'theory of originalism' but the 'gun rights are not to be infringed' is the essence of the 2A article. And, yes state laws have infringed, but as pointed out, that has nothing to do with the 2A. This POV doesn't favor gun-rights, it reflects the purpose of the amendment.

2) Agreed. No state-court case-law has any relevance to the 2A article - UNLESS it makes a definitive statement about the 2A's purpose (e.g. Nunn v. Georgia).

3) There is no neutral tone concerning the 2A. It is fixed binding law. 'Positions' on gun advocacy are not relevant, the 2A's purpose is not determined by a public survey.

4) The 2A does not provide for a militia. It merely prohibits federal infringement on their weapons. Federal legislation which affects the 'right' must be included here because it bears on the 2A's subject matter.

5) Federal case-law that defines the purpose of the 2A is certainly appropriate - it is not 'pro-gun' - it is anti-infringement. (They are not the same thing, the right existed before the amendment.)

6) The Founders' intent is crucial to the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is inalienable. Whether it should be or not, is not the subject of this article.

7) 'Common sense gun law' is not law. The 2A article is about a constitutional law which has a precise purpose. Viewpoints concerning the 'right' have no affect on the 2A's purpose, and thus should be removed from this article. Advocating federal infringement is asking Congress to violate their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. (The proper forum for that would be within one's own state.)

8) The 20th Century political history should be a part of this article - but only 'federal' history which pertains to the 2A. The 'modern militia movement' is irrelevant, unless a spokesman has stated something publicly concerning the 2A. (The 2A is not about the 'right' or 'militias', it's about infringement.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty and sole power to declare what the U.S. Constitution means. The High Court stated that the right to bear arms was not granted by the U.S. Constitution; nor is the right dependent on that instrument for its existence; that the Second Amendment means no more than that the right shall not be infringed by Congress; and that the amendment is a limitation only upon the national government, and not upon that of the state. Therefore, the Second Amendment Article must be about to whom 'shall not be infringed' applies, and thus whether federal legislation has protected or infringed on the right - all else is irrelevant. (Truwik (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree with just about everything above. I would however allow "collective" arguments to be included and if those points of view were examined in Heller, to include within the article what the Supreme Court has to say on those points of view.68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Justice Stevens, in his dissent, had argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, only exercisable by people who were in militia groups. The Heller majority refuted that (at p. 5 & p. 6 footnote) by noting that the expression "right of the people" occurs in the 1st & 4th Amendments (as well as the 2A) and "by the people" in the 9th Amendment, then stated: "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." Prior to Heller, and since the NFA of 1934, Congress had regulated weapons which it deemed were not suitable for militias (short-barrelled rifles & shotguns, e.g.). Thus from the NFA of 1934 to Heller, the 'collective right' view held sway. That is, then, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" only applied to militia-type weapons. Now, post Heller, it applies to militia-type and individual-type weapons. (Truwik (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

The courts publish dissentng opinions to show that all arguments had been heard and examined. I am in favor of including the "collective" viewpoint with any Heller commentary on the various arguments of that camp, for the same reason. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be misunderstanding about the meaning of 'collective' and 'individual.' And this misunderstanding appears to be based on the notion that the right is somehow inextricably bound to the amendment. That is, without the amendment, there would be no right. If that be the case, how do we explain the right's existence before the amendment's? From at least 1776 to 1791, all Americans were exercising the right, whether they were associated with a militia or not. So both the individual right and the collective right existed before the amendment. And both groups continued to exercise the right for the rest of that century, through the 19th Century and into the 20th Century, after the amendment. In historical fact, both groups have had the right (whether they exercised it or not) from our beginnings to the present. Thus the right is not dependent on the amendment for its existence. The right is inalienable, which means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred." The Second Amendment is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' on the federal government. Stated otherwise: If the U.S. Constitution were repealed and the federal government disbanded, Americans would still have the right to bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Some peple think that collective rights can only be exercised by a group. That is wrong. The collective exercise of a right is just a whole bunch of people exercising their individual rights at the same time. It has for instance been found that the right to "assemble" is an individual right and not a collective right. The whole "collective" right thing is a result of growing governmenal power and those in government finding any excuse that sounds even remotely logical to reduce the common mans resistance to that encroachment. Since people defending their rghts with guns in their hands are more effective at resisting encroachment, those in power attempt to dimish that ability to resist by doing everything they can to reduce gun ownership.

Actually I should take back that part about government power, it is more like a group of people whose aim is to grow their power at everyone elses expnse, and who currently control large parts of the government, including the Justice Department and the Courts, banking, the news indutry, the entertainment industry and quite a few more industries. They control large chunks of the econmy, and they have paid agents everywhere who help push their agenda. Some of those agents are paid and know what they are doing and some are "usefull idiots".

Some quotes from Kissinger

“"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

Feel free to call me paranoid.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 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 Constitutional 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 occasional 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 size 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)

I am going to make edits where I see appropriate, since I see no one actually making a contrary argument here (suggesting I 'learn to live with it' is not an argument). Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't make drastic changes (including deletions) without there being agreement for such changes. Silence should not be interpreted as agreement. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of making many editors upset, I have removed the entire argument about 'keep and bear arms' from the article. This section embodies everything in this article that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Different editors essentially writing short term papers on what they think 'keep and bear arms' means to further their own POVs is not what one finds in an encyclopedia.

Something about this disagreement could be in the article if someone briefly and objectively summarized the different schools of thought in this debate without going too far afield (Cicero!)

It might even be worth having a section titled 'Controversies and Interpreting the Amendment' where all the debates about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted can be succinctly summarized without turning the whole article into a giant messy war. I hate to make a huge drastic edit like this without consensus, but something huge and drastic needs to be done. This article isn't getting any better. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your drastic deletion of material goes much too far. Would you try it again, a piece at at time? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the material which was deleted by Nwlaw63. Such a massive deletion of sourced material, whether in one edit or a group of edits, should be done only when a consensus for such a deletion has been achieved. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm going to repeat comments i made above, since nwlaw63 apparently missed them. "correct (re WP:SIZE). 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." you have no consensual rationale for taking a meat-axe to this article nwlaw63. your edits could be construed as disruptive and sanctionable considering the above. Anastrophe (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I should take the opportunity to make a point about length. Yes, the article is too long. But this is a symptom of the problem - the problem itself is not about word count. The problem is the huge abundance of irrelevant, confusing material that uses extensive inappropriate historical quotation, veers wildly into original research and exists only to support the various POVs of this article's editors. I understand that there are editors on this page who passionately believe in the individual rights version of to keep and bear arms. There are then people who believe in the military, militia-based view of the right. Let's summarize these views succinctly, the way an encyclopedia is meant to do. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding with threats rather than reasoned argument seems to be sadly typical of editors on this article. No one, it seems, wishes to defend the existence of this section. It seems that editors take the view that consensus is need to remove inappropriate pieces of the article, but that none is needed to throw in more more POV, off-topic material. This explains the sad state of this article to a great degree. I have invited editors to discuss the relevance of this section and how it can be included in an appropriate form. In the meantime, I will continue to edit in an effort to better the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, having each "camp" make a long argument about what to keep and bear arms means while referencing Aristotle and Cicero to support the philosophical underpinnings of their argument, turns this article into a bad joke. What would work is to state something along the lines of "There are two schools of thought as to the meaning of 'to keep and bear arms'. Some see this as an individual and private rights to bear arms for self defense. Other see this right only in a military context...' I'm not saying that is the perfect wording, but the long historical quotes to buttress competing points of view have to go. Is anyone here going to try to pretend that an actual encyclopedia would contain a section that looks like this? Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about how wikipedia works. like it or not, a single editor deciding to meataxing large chunks of sourced material, unilaterally, is not how wikipedia works. if you don't like it, perhaps you should find some other encyclopedia to edit, but in the here and now, yes, your edits were disruptive, possibly designed to make a WP:POINT, and could result in sanctions if you were to continue doing them. sorry you don't like that, but it's how it is. try working collaboratively with your fellow editors. take a chunk of the article that you think needs to go (and "I don't like it" isn't a good starting point), reproduce it here, and explain your rationale for removing it (though offering suggested new/simplified/better text might be the better approach). explain why you believe reference to Aristotle and Cicero in an encyclopedia article is outside the realm of what a 'real' encyclopedia would have in it. Anastrophe (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

and lets not forget: your original claim was indeed that the word count was too large. you claimed it was one of the largest articles on wikipedia. you've shifted your argument to something entirely different now. your original rationale was simply 'too long based on word count'. you can hardly fault fellow editors for taking issue with you making changes based on one rationale, then ex post facto changing the rationale. Anastrophe (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The length of the article and the irrelevant nature of much of material included therein are separate but interrelated issues which together represent a serious problem for the article. I am not seeking to remove material "because I don't like it", but because it represents a clear violation of the Wikipedia: no original research policy (analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position). I notice that you devote a fair amount of space to criticizing me and questioning my motives, and none to actually defending the relevance of this section. I proposed above a starting place in summarizing the competing views of 'to keep and bear arms'. Do you agree or have an argument for a different approach? Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

it's not my obligation to 'defend the relevance of this section', it's your obligation to detail, precisely, what original research and synthesis is taking place. a complaint of OR or SYN without actual specifics about them, as a basis for mass deletion of material, won't stand. specifically detailed explanations are necesary, as well as allowing other editors to collaborate on the changes, rather than unilateral meat-axing. if there is OR and SYN, i'll be delighted to see it edited appropriately. meat-axing is not appropriate. specific details are. Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite specific - You don't seem to want to actually respond to the point that I am making. The entire section is an argument; it doesn't even approach NPOV. Read the first paragraph:

"The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[23] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[24] Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them,[25] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[26]"

This paragraph reads like an essay designed to promote a particular POV about the meaning of to keep and bear arms. There is not even a pretense to objectivity here. In its most embarassing aspect, it calls on philosophers thousands of years past to support its argument. What's needed is for the article to recognize that this isn't "the objective truth", but merely a point of view. Phrasing it as such will allow it to be included in an NPOV way. The same goes for the military view of keep and bear arms as well. Furthermore, these views could be summarized in such a way that doesn't call for interminable quotations that would never find their way into a real encyclopedia. Thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion that could decrease the article's size. The 2A isn't about militias, it's about the right not being infringed upon. Rights, including the right to bear arms, are inalienable. In the United States, every citizen, by virtue of his birth here, has these rights. Arguing the pros and cons of the arms' right, has unnecessarily turned this article in a moot court for personal agendas. It is pointless to debate a subject matter over which neither side has any power. Regardless of what consensus might be reached by these dueling editors, the right would still be intact. It's inherent. For my suggestion to reflect this in the article's lead-in statement, see NPOV problems at end. (Truwik (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I've pointed out a number of areas where the article could be reduced in size. Most of the section on "to bear" arms can be disposed of since the subject is the right "to keep and bear" arms, not just the right to "bear arms". The WARD material does not belong in case law since nothing there is about case law. Additional misc. but plainly BOGUS material from paid Joyce Foundation mouthpiece Cornell should also be gotten rid of. How can anyone take him seriously when he opines that the collective right viewpoint predated the individual right viewpoint when all evidence points otherwise.68.160.176.7 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is an abundance of extraneous material here, that then generates comments and ever-more excursions into pre-American history - even word studies. For example, does 'bear' mean "a large heavy mammal having long shaggy hair"; or "carry"? If the former, would that include Pandas, and if not, why not? Do some editors hate Tibet? And just because the polar icecaps are melting is no reason to exclude Polar Bears from this study into origin of the species! How will we ever know which came first - the chicken or the egg - not to mention, why 'know' is spelled with a 'k'? You get the picture - I agree that Prof. Cornell's dissertations (and similar writings by others of his ilk) should be removed from this article. (Citing books as authorities, without quoting from them, only serves to disguise motives and mislead.) Again, this article is not about the right, per se, it's about the "shall not be infringed" restriction, which applies exclusively to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Are you both in agreement that the section 'to bear arms v. to keep and bear arms' is extraneous? This is a starting point from which we might build some consensus. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not extraneous. It needs to be refined to indicate that since the right protected is the "right to keep and bear arms" it includes BOTH the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The way that section is written, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms have been separated and seem almost opposed to each other as if it is one it can't be the other. The Second Amendment protects BOTH.68.160.141.242 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is extraneous. The 2A is not a definition of the right, nor the source of it. It could have read: '...the right to Arms shall not be infringed' and still had the same meaning. The 2A is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' on the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 17:00, 15 March 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)

Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.

The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources for a description of my belief. This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise. I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not. Are you willing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cornell is an ongoing issue - please do not archive this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This dispute indeed has gone on a long time, I agree. I suggest that if you continue to not be satisfied that you pursue satisfaction using the procedures outlined in WP:Dispute Resolution. I would be willing to participate in this process with you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine! Explain to me why this article should use a known mouthpiece of a gun control group as its most prevalent source.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

where the judge states

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than two versions

This is in response to the request by SMP0328. (talk · contribs) to discuss this change on the talk page. The edit summary for SMP0328.'s reversion says "the article should include at least one version of the amendment's text". When I made the change, it did contain one version in the introductory paragraph, but ironically this has been deleted in the meantime, the reason given being that two versions of the text are already shown in the Text section :-). I don't have any preference for whether the text should be given in the introduction or in a later section; what's important, though, is that the current version of the article is false. There are not two versions, but a large number of versions, as described in the source I'd referenced. I had tried to summarize the complicated situation described in that source in the two sentences "The versions used at various times by the ratifying states, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the executive differ both between and within these branches. There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present." Perhaps there is a better way to summarize this information, but simply saying "There are two versions of the text of the Second Amendment" and then quoting two particular versions when there are so many others is just wrong -- unless, that is, you think the source I referenced is mistaken. Joriki (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting reference. It seems to be defining every error in transcription ever found in an official document as a different "versions" of the Second Amendment. For instance, it asserts that the Executive Branch uses either a two comma or three comma version when the example of a two comma version is in an appendix of a document about Court Martials. Seems like an issue where these other versions need to be weighed against the two discussed here, the version approved by Congress and the version ratified by the States. We could change the wording to be more inclusive, simply pointing out that the version sent to the states was different rather than saying that there were two versions, but that might be compared to saying that there are more than two results from a coin flip. Celestra (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusive is better. I prefer adding to an article rather than subtracting from it. I would continue to show the different versions, because articles about amendment to the U.S. Constitution always have a text section. How about referring to the currently shown versions as examples of the slight punctuation differences? SMP0328. (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, referring to them as examples would be good. Celestra, you talk about "the version ratified by the States" -- the reference says that four different versions were ratified by different states. I agree that its basis for talking about different versions used in the executive branch is a bit weak, but the ratified versions are all quoted from the same book and refer directly to the ratification acts. Is there any evidence to the contrary that suggests that the states all ratified the same version? Joriki (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles. Fair enough, though, I had recalled that there were thirteen copies created at a single time and sent to the various States to be ratified, but I don't have a reference that says as much. Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles in copies in official documents without giving undue weight to the variety relative to the current two? Or would it be better to see if we can find a reference that describes the copies sent to the states to see if there were additional variations in those documents? Celestra (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles". The reference cites the "Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1786-1870, Derived from the Records, Manuscripts and Rolls Deposited in the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State (1894)", which you can view online here. (If you use "Flip Book", click outside the page on the other pages to flip more than one page at a time.) I'm not an expert on evaluating sources like this, but it does seem to contain the text of the ratified amendments, not just "details around the ratification".

What does "the current two" refer to? In what sense are any two copies more current than others? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'm new to this subject and would like to know.)

You ask "Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles [...]?". I'd tried doing this for the commas with the sentence "There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present.", which I think summarizes the variations pretty succinctly. Perhaps one could do something similar for the capitalizations and the articles. Joriki (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joriki. I was making a distinction between the two versions currently presented in the article and the other versions we would like to include. The two currently presented are the version approved by Congress and the version sent to the States for ratification. Some of the additional versions are versions in the documents recording the formal ratification from each State. (That was what I meant by "state documents.") It's not unreasonable to argue that the versions in the official documents recording the ratifications are of similar significance to the one passed by Congress, but I'm concerned that including many versions of the text gives undue weight to a section that is really just an interesting side note. One way we could capture the fact of the variety might be: "There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Among them are the version approved by Congress...." Would that be agreeable? Celestra (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Celestra -- thanks for the explanation and for the proposal, which I like. If you include the reference with the many versions, people who are interested can explore the versions further. Joriki (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward does not reference Second Amendment

I don't see any references to any sort of court ruling or opinion regarding the Second Amendment in the Ward references in the Case Law section. I therefore can't see how references to this case can be included under case law. The references should therefore be moved out of case law section or deleted as not relevant to the article. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for any objections to removing Ward from Case Law section. Nothing currently in the article has anything to do with "case law" in any way. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the Ward material from the article or merely move it out of the Case law section? SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has no place in case law, since it is not case law, and it has no place in commentary since it is not commentary. I have to go with complete removal. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with the opinion of a former attorney general of the US regarding Bliss. It should stay. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of a former attorney general rightly belongs under commentary and not "case law". Case law is written by the judge or judges of a case. He was neither. If you wish to move some or all of the material for Ward into commentary feel free top do so but that material does not belong under case law.68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the anonIP editor, that whole case law section suffers from WP:SYN problems and is overloaded with non-relevant material that smacks of concealed carry advocacy. And the 'violative' snippet remains unconfirmed and quite dubious. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

At the "Trial of the Wards" (1854), Matthew Ward and his brother William were declared 'Not Guilty' in the shooting death of a teacher, Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler had his hands on Matthew and was pushing him towards a door, when Matthew shot him. The jury saw that as self-defense rather than murder. The Second Amendment was never mentioned by anyone connected with the trial, nor is there any indication in the AnteBellum piece that Sen. Crittenden mentioned it either. If he, or anyone else, connected the Ward trial with the Second Amendment, they must be quoted and referenced to a verifiable authoritative source. If no such quotes are available 'Ward' must be removed. (Truwik (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Except that is not what a reliable and verifiable source claims, As noted in the article, "Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” 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.”"

The mention of Ward is thus entirely appropriate. Yaf (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The bigger question is: Why does something as extremely obscure as this little known 1854 trial under state law in a state court have enough relevancy to deserve space in a major Wikipedia article? Yaf, as you are the only editor doggedly defending this 'case law' sub-section, please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that the interpretation of the Second Amendment changed during the 19th Century. Originally, the early 19th Century interpretation was that any infringing of the right to keep and bear arms was prohibited by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, thereby precluding any regulations of the carrying of concealed arms, by state law. The words were interpreted as meaning exactly what they say, with no nuances. Over time, this interpretation drifted, and, eventually, in Robertson just before the end of the 19th Century, the SCOTUS even supported this viewpoint through dicta stating that laws regulating the carrying of concealed weapons did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That said, there are still two states to this day that have maintained the original interpretation, in that they do not require the possession of a concealed carry weapon license or permit to carry an arm concealed, thereby holding to the original interpretation of the Second Amendment found in Bliss and even Ward. If we are to be honest in describing the history of interpretations of the 2A, then there is a reason for this Bliss and Ward content. It is not about concealed carry history, or about interpreting state laws, rather, it is about the history of interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because of this, there is no mention of the two states that have retained the original interpretation within state law in this article, as that is demonstrably a minority viewpoint among the 50 states. A very small mention would probably be acceptable to most editors, but it just hasn't been a burning issue. Do you now support including mention of the two states that hold to the original interpretation of the 2A? Yaf (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Current consensus on keeping Ward material is 3 for removal and 1 for retaining.141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive use of Saul Cornell"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight given to tiny minority opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found three, (Cornell, Shalhope, Warnke) now you want more. OK, add to the list of scholars who describe this "civic right" model: David Konig, Richard Primus, Richard Uviller and William Merkel[12] for a total of seven. Still, you have identified zero sources for your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joyce funded Chicago Kent which defended the traditional collective rights view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case law vs Judicial interpretation

To Yaf - don't know why you want to keep Ward in the article, but your change has only highlighted the fact that Ward does not belong where it is currently located.

There is NO Judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment in Ward.68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an interpretation specifically of the Second Amendment in Ward attorney arguments referenced to Bliss made by a former attorney general of the US, the lead attorney in Ward, per cites. Looks like a clear reason for including this cited content to me, being it is directly related to judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment arising out of court cases. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An attorney "uses" judicial interpretation, he does not make it. That holds true for even a former attorney general. Unless there is some text in the Ward JUDGEMENT itself about the Second Amendment, there is no "judicial interpretation". The material currently in the article has not one word of "judicial interpretation" in it from the Ward case itself, and is wholly composed of NON-Judicial "opinion". While NON-Judicial opinion as a place under commentary, it has no place under "case law" OR "judicial interpretation".68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as Wikipedia editors, we cannot directly interpret primary documents, in this case, the Bliss or Ward judgements themselves, and ascertain their direct relevance to the Second Amendment in and of themselves, for the judgements are not, in and of themselves, useful for any interpretation of themselves and for establishing their importance relative to understanding the Second Amendment. But, the opinion of the former US Atty General regarding these cases and their relevance to the Second Amendment is entirely appropriate for inclusion in this article for establishing interpretations of the Second Amendment based upon such judicial interpretations. This way, no original research is being done, of primary documents, that we must interpret. The focus here is on interpretations of the Second Amendment, for inclusion in this article. Looked at this way, this content clearly has a valid place under a section regarding "Judicial interpretation" of the topic of this article, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This article is not about Bliss or Ward, but about the Second Amendment. Agreed? Yaf (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I think you've just beaten out Salty Boatr on the doublespeak department and probably the bad faith department as well. The situation is simple, If there is no mention of the Second Amendment in the JUDGEMENT, then there is no judicial interpretation going on. If there is no judicial interpretation, then there is no reason to include the material. Comprende?

BTW: and speaking of doublespeak and doublethink I have a quote I'd like inserted in the article by George Orwell, any objections?

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. ~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New Robertson v. Baldwin belongs under Reconstruction not Antebellum

By Yaf's placing of Robertson v. Baldwin within the Antebellum section, the article runs a severe risk of misinforming readers as to what was the current judicial interpretation of that period. Since he does not seem to trust my judgment and I do not wish to get into an edit war I think I will let him confirm that 1897 was not part of the Antebellum period and upon confirmation he can then fix his own mistake.68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1897 isn't considered part of the Reconstruction era of the United States? Robertson v. Baldwin is referenced in that part of the Antebellum subsubsection to show that the U.S. Supreme Court would later confirm that reading of the Second Amendment. That's why it's in that part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1897 isn't part of reconstruction era. If it's not then why is there a case referenced there from 1905? As for the rest of your attempted clarification, why don't we put Heller in there as well as it, since per your own words it "later confirms that reading of the Second Amendment"68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Robertson rears its ugly 'dicta' head. Mr. Justice Brown said (at p. 282): "to keep and bear arms (article 2) [sic] is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons." This dicta comment had nothing to do with the issue before the Court, thus it is not citable as a Second Amendment precedent. However, he could just as easily have said: "No state law that infringes on the right has ever violated the Second Amendment" and it would have been equally as true. He could have said: "If Washington State law required the death penalty for every resident who even touched a weapon" that would not violate the Second Amendment either. Don't believe that? Show me. Show me one state or federal court-case which held that a state law had violated the Second Amendment. If one can't be found then all state-court case-law must be removed from this article. (Truwik (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Checked the archives and found that Robertson was determined to be "opinion" and not "case law" by this board and that as such it has no place in the article. At least not under the case law section. I again agree to its removal from the article on those grounds.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only plausible reason for the Robertson dicta being here is its inference that if "laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" don't violate the 2A, then no federal law that infringes on the right would violate it - which is diametric to what the amendment states. Robertson belongs in the trash heap. (Truwik (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

As I said I support the deletion of Robertson material from "case law". However I am keeping to a strict limit of 2 reverts a day as some people (know a Salty Boatr and Yaf) have already banned me twice for what I believed to be "good faith effort" on my part to improve this article. As I have more important fish to fry, I will not be using them on Robertson. Sorry for being able to give only limited support.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidential administrations

Anastrophe removed the Presidential administrations section, claiming it added nothing to the article; I restored it. I believe it is relevant to the article to have what past Presidential administrations have said regarding the Second Amendment. There are sections regarding the Congress and the federal courts; there should also be one about the executive branch. SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

okay. we need to add significant material to it however. it excludes 52 of the 56 presidential administrations this country has had. some have strongly supported the second amendment, some have been strongly against it, most have had little to say about it, and since the executive has scant powers to affect the second amendment directly, it seems to be giving undue weight to a relatively trivial aspect of the 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For new material! I vote that we add the fact that Obama has already backpedaled on is campaign promise to leave guns alone.68.160.141.242 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

see the problem? it just becomes a magnet for POV pushing, which this article doesn't need. Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is "a magnet for POV pushing" (see Talk:Barack Obama). That isn't a reason to remove reliably sourced material. I have no objection to having material added to that section. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this a POV push? If we are going to add material on additional administrations we need to start SOMEWHERE. Starting with the current administrations seems logical to me. I think readers would be more interested in learning about Obama's stint at the Joyce Foundation pushing gun control, then the thoughts of say Grant or Cleveland on the issue. Although thinking about it Jefferson's views that a gun should be your constant companion ranks up there.68.160.141.242 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i still maintain it gives undue weight to a couple of relatively trivial references to the second amendment. Anastrophe (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not edit that section so it refers to more information, while complying with NPOV? SMP0328. (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

because, as others have noted, the article is large (though not "too large" ;^). adding counterpoising trivial information won't satisfy the weight issue. presidential memoranda have no actual legal weight or clout at all, they're merely something issued from the bully pulpit of a sitting administration. wonderful as president grant's comments were, they were merely comments, and his later service as president of the NRA is interesting, but that's grist for Ulysses S. Grant, not this article, which isn't about the NRA. Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Next on the list

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

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

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

The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yaf - undue weight

regarding itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny minority opinion

I believe "does not belong in Wikipedia" covers this situation

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

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some part of "DOES NOT BELONG IN WIKIPEDIA" that some people around here don't understand?141.154.12.116 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting about getting consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that the complaint was on this board for about two weeks and that I had repeatedly asked for objections. Where were yours?141.154.12.116 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just telling you that your removal was going to be reverted. Maybe Yaf, SaltyBoatr and Anastrophe aren't currently on-line, but as soon as one of them would have seen your removal, it would have been reverted. When it comes to this article, being bold is not a good idea for anything other than minor edits. SMP0328. (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This was a minor edit! If you disagree and believe te disputed material should stay then all you have to do is find a second source for the term "civic right". That's right! Just one other source for a total of TWO and I will stop trying to get rid of the quote. Just make sure you post a link and that Cornell's name doesn't show up anywhere. Sources are books, scholarly articles, historical documents, court cases, court briefs, records of debates and other such things. Th home page of the Joyce Foundation doesn't count. Good luck! You will need it!141.154.12.116 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you consult the influential Harvard Law Professor Zechariah Chafee's entry in the Encylopedia of the Social Sciences (1930) you will discover that he wrote "unlike neighboring amendments, this clause safeguards individual liberty very little and relates mainly to our federal scheme of government." I think it is quite clear that this is how mainstream legal thought construed the Amendment from Cruikshank until Heller. Certainly there were dissents from this point of view, but the evidence that this was the dominant view is hard to dispute.Conlawgeek (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me try again. This a simple concept. The word militia was never used in Cruikshank and therefore Cruikshank could not have pushed a militia based view. Comprende?141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

English Background

I think it is time to move beyond the bickering and try and improve this essay. I have removed material derived from Halbrook who is a partisan advocate and not a neutral scholarly authority. I have added some balance to the English background section by including some more English legal history and pointing out that even St. George Tucker did not view the English Bill of Rights in the way that this article presents it. All of this material can be checked on the Founders Constitution entry under Amendment Two. I have a brief to write, so I can't spend all my time on this. I would ask that people take seriously these suggestions which will go a long way to showing that this entry is trying to be fair and rigorous. CheersConlawgeek (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The material you removed was a direct quote from Heller and properly cited. The material you added did not include a citation. If you wish to improve the article please do not delete properly cited material with unbacked personal opinion.

Regarding you position that the right to keep and bear arms was limited to Protestants, I would think that even a minor investigation on your part would have shown that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Original 13 colonies were Protestants.141.154.12.116 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A few points about the need for some intellectual rigor. Just because something is cited does not mean it needs to be in this article and just because something is cited does not mean that it is properly placed in context. The material on the colonists that I removed does not tell us how colonists understood the words they used. Simply quoting them and pointing to a gun rights interpretation of them by Halbrook does not establish that they support an individual rights reading of the material it merely establishes that Halbrook thinks they support his view. Why anyone would accept Halbrook, and reject Cornell, is astonishing, but I would rather keep this focused on the issues relevant to writing a decent treatment of this controversial topic.

Second-- the point that Tucker was making was about how the Founders understood the English legacy. Your comment suggest a failure to distinguish between three levels of understanding: What the English legacy was, what the Founders thought this legacy was, and how modern scholars and jurists have interpreted that legacy. I think reverting the material suggest both bad faith, ideological bias, and a lack of sophistication regarding evidence and interpretation. I now see why this essay is viewed as biased.Conlawgeek (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

that may be; however, i would recommend that you familiarize yourself better with wikipedia's core policies. as it stands, your contribution did not conform to the core policy of verifiability (it was uncited), so was little more than prose that we're to take your word is accurately representative of some source that remains a mystery. unsourced prose/commentary simply will not stand in article space. Anastrophe (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not removing cited material from Halbrook, the issue here is replacing cited material from a Supreme Court decision. Last I checked no cite lists Halbrook as a source. Even if one did, to conform to neutrality standards, since Cornell is STILL cited 7 times , why should Halbrook not be also cited 7 times. Anything less is POV bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Conlawgeek makes some excellent points, especially about English legacy and the problems with ideological bias in the article. I also agree that the Conlawgeek edits need to be made based on reliable sourcing, see WP:V for an explanation of this policy. I look forward to hearing the sourcing for the edit so it may be included in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Source for claim that English right was limited: \

Amendment II

Document 1

Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)

Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure. And that the King's justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act. And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.

The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 1 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html The University of Chicago Press

Source For Tucker's view that English right was limited:

True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 7 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html The University of Chicago Press

Conlawgeek (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

your selective quoting of Tucker is disingenuous. he's referring to the egregious extinguishment of the right at the hands of legislators, who have interpreted restrictions on the right that are contrary to liberty. here's the first half that you elided:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

i think your claim of ideological bias cleaves both ways, upon presentment of the full quote.Anastrophe (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the statute of Northampton cited above was replaced be the stature allowing protestants to carry arms. Dead law has no place to stand when it goes against live law. The argument used is therefore total garbage.

A statute from the 1300's is dead and buried when contrary to a statute from 1689 and was probably dead ad buried even before 1689.

These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689).141.154.12.116 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think anastrophe has made a common error typical of gun rights readings of this evidence. The individual right of self defense is not quite the same as the right Tucker describes in this passage. In the state of nature every individual, including slaves, had an absolute right of self defense. Under civil society that right was ceded and one had a common law right of self defense far more limited in nature. The constitutional right to bear arms was even more narrow. Women had the former, but not the latter. Here is a good example of the way self defense was understood in the 18th century.

1st. The power that every one has in a state of nature to do whatever he judgeth fit, for the preservation of his person and property and that of others also, within the permission of the law of nature, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself (his person and property) and the rest of that society shall require.

And 2nd. The power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature by his own single authority as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.

The quote comes from Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants (1744), reprinted in 1 Political Sermons of the Founding Era, 1730–1805, at 59 (Ellis Sandoz ed., 1998) (emphasis in original).

It seems to me the whole Tucker passage is ambiguous at best on the individual rights character of the Amendment-- it sets the right of self defense against the Whig fear of a standing army-- hardly a slam dunk for an individual rights view of the matter. What is clear is that Tucker did not see the English right as very broad.Conlawgeek (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the St. George Tucker quote to the extent it is provided in the source provided by Conlawgeek. That better than the small fraction of that quote which was earlier provided. SMP0328. (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Tucker quote contradicts the first line which asserts a pre-existing right. Tucker's quote clearly suggests that there was little protection for such a right under English law. I will change the first line to reflect the clear meaning of Tucker's statement.Conlawgeek (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"the clear meaning"? according to whom? Anastrophe (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Ablative Absolute

I am referring to this sentence in the Wiki entry:

"In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause.[14][15]"

I think this sentence is confusing and misleading. First of all, in the Wikipedia article that the term "ablative absolute" links to, it states that there is no such thing as an ablative absolute in the English language. Instead, in English the grammatical name for this type of phrase is "nominative absolute". This makes sense since ablative absolute refers to the ablative case which only exists in Latin and not in English.

Second, the sentence creates the impression that if this is an "ablative absolute" or a "nominative absolute" it necessarily means that the only interpration is that the declarative clause has some sort of conditional relationship with the justification clause. This is not the case for either an "ablative absolute" OR a "nominative absolute" phrase. See the Wiki entries for both "ablative absolute" and "nominative absolute". In both entries there is no indication that this is the only way to interpret these types of phrases. Therefore, I think this sentence should be modified as follows if it is to remain:

"In one description the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause that is conditioned on or dependent on the justification clause."

If anyone objects to this edit please let me know. Otherwise I will go ahead and make it.

Finally, both cites at the end of this sentence do not appear to support the sentence. The first cite is to an article that disagrees strongly with this concept and never uses this phrase. The second cite is to the Heller decision which is also, based on my understanding, not supportive of this concept.

Therefore, I suggest whomever wishes to include this text should find a more appropriate cite.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.124.17 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Ablative absolute argument was examined in Heller and found wanting. It should either be removed or commentary from Heller added to "restore neutrality". At this time only 1 side of the "Ablative absolute" argument is showing. For neutrality oth pro and con need to be represented.

From Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).[Footnote 3] “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.[Footnote 4]141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heller is a court document, a primary document. See WP:PSTS. Rather than your personal interpretation, it would be preferable to use a tertiary source which describes what Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion. Your direct interpretation of the court document violates WP:NOR, though if you find a reliable tertiary source confirming your original research, I would not have objection for it to be included as a significant point of view. It has not been shown that Scalia "ruled" about the grammar, instead he merely expressed his opinion about the grammar. Based on reliable sourcing, it is obvious that there are various reliable and credible opinions about the grammar of the 2A. One, held by linguistic scholars cited, is the Latin. Another, held by others, including Antonin Scalia, is different. These all, if they meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, should be included in the article. Also of note, the various interpretations of the 2A have been changing over time, and the recent interpretation epitomized in "Heller" is the current, and even it seems to be coming down to earth as the district courts, post-Heller, have been hearing and rejecting scores of challenges to gun laws in the last nine months. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am interpreting nothing. I am pointing out that the "ablative absolute" argument has been examined and found wanting and that "neutrality" requires either that this discredited opinion be removed or that arguments contrary to its validity be included in the article. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to guess what you are using as sourcing for your opinion. All you have said is that you have read the Heller opinion and this is what you believe it means. Show us a reliable tertiary source which confirms your opinion please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read what I wrote you would not have to guess. The text cited is directly from Heller and that is plainly stated above. If you have some sort of learning disability disability that doesn't let you understand the meaning of the words "From Heller" I apologize for my rough treatment and advise you to seek therapy.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

please be civil, and refrain from personal attacks. the above is a patent violation of both. if you disagree with what a person has written, then argue with what was written; attacking the person is a fallacy and doesn't advance your position - in fact, it belittles your position. Anastrophe (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it belittle someones position when that person in one post states "Heller is a court document" and in the next pretends not to know that the subject is a quote direct from Heller? and if does belittle that persons position, how am I to indicate to that person that he acting in bad faith? If wiki has a specific label for such activity please let me know what it is and I will use it in the future.141.154.12.116 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel belittled. That was not what I intended to do, I apologize. The principle here is that we are writing an encyclopedia, together. We all have agreed to follow the same policies. The policy "no original research" means that even if you have an excellent, true, and correct idea; you cannot insert that idea into the encyclopedia until that idea is confirmed in reliable sourcing. I am not selecting you out for harassment. Please, please, go and read the policies on WP:Verifiability and on WP:No Original Research, and follow them. I predict that you will find that your endeavors to edit this article will proceed much more easily if you follow those core policies. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel belittled in the least. My concern was whether YOU had belittled yourself. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heller and the Debate over the scope of the pre-existing right

If this essay is to be of any use and have any relation to reality it must acknowledge that the 5/4 vote in Heller is evidence of a basic division over how to interpret sources such as English history. Given that Scalia and Stevens do not agree-- how is it possible that this article keeps on reverting back to a one sided gun rights account of this history? I have a full time job and don't have time to devote full time to this so I am off till next week-- assuming that people here are really interested in an honest account of this controversial issue. I suggest that the only honest approach is to recognize the differences as articulated in Heller and acknowledge them in the section on the English right. Conlawgeek (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Conlawgeek (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reality that needs to be acknowledged is that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right that directly follows from the right to life, liberty and property and a persons right to defend such.

I don't need YOUR permission to defend my rights. I already have my own permission.03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk)

State Ratification Conventions

The comment following the Pennsylvania Minority's proposed Right to keep and bear arms, states "While individual rights supporters lay great stress on this Pennsylvania text, critics have pointed out that it's language was never copied despite its wide distribution."

The individual right supporters bring up the Pennsylvania Minority Right to counter the claim by the right of states to have militia supporters, who claim the phrase "bear arms" always meant to fight in a war or serve in a military unit. The Pennsylvania Minority's inclusion of self defense and killing game under their right to bear arms makes it quite clear that bear arms did not universally mean to fight or serve in the military to the people of the United States in the 1780s and 1790s.

You also cut out the actual words used by the State Ratification Conventions that called for rights to bear arms. New Hampshire proposed prohibition against disarming citizens has no association with the Militia at all. It is quite clear from the wording of Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island's proposals , that the people's right was not dependent upon membership in the militia.

What the Ratification Conventions actually said is very important in undstanding what the Second Amendment Means. Let the readers read the actual words of the ratification conventions.

New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on June 21,1788 and attached recommended alterations including “XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.”

Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, upon resolving that amendments would be recommended to Congress. Among Virginia’s recommendations to Congress was a bill of rights securing the essential and unalienable rights of the people, including recognition “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.”

New York ratified the Constitution on July 26,1788 with an attached bill of rights that “cannot be abridged or violated,” including, “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.”

On August 1,1788, North Carolina refused to ratify the proposed constitution, citing the lack of a Bill of Rights. Among the unalienable rights of the people they called to be protected before the delegates would sign was a provision identical to the Virginia request, and almost identical to the New York request for a right to keep and bear arms: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;….” North Carolina ratified the constitution on November 21, 1789, after Congress approved the Bill of Rights and submitted them to the States for ratification.

Rhode Island at first refused to call a ratification convention. When they finally called a convention and ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island attached a request for a Bill of Rights that could not be abridged or violated. This attached Bill of Rights contained a “keep and bear arms” section identical to New York’s request: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;….” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobkerrigan (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mad Hatters out in force

Direct from the Supreme Court

Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Justice Stevens was nit-picking. Keep and bear simply means: possess and carry. All States have regulated both, and 'carry' usually means 'concealed carry' for which one must have a life-threatening circumstance to qualify. Such as when a girlfriend looks her guy straight in the eye and says: What was that you said! But the purpose for bearing arms is immaterial to this article. (Truwik (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

with all due respect, i find that kind of humor highly inappropriate. if this were a forum it might be appropriate, but it's not. juxtaposing discussion of firearms and domestic violence isn't funny. sorry for being a humorless boor, but i feel it merited mention. Anastrophe (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an abused woman using a firearm to deter an abusive boyfriend/husband/significant other.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

non sequitur. Anastrophe (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you consider domestic violence "humorous"?

A non sequitur (pronounced [ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtɚ]) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.141.154.12.116 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. v. Miller

Court case entries should only contain what the parties contended and what the court decided. Interlacing law journal comments with the court's decision confuses readers. Such comments are certainly appropriate for this article but to intertwine them with case-law results in endless repetitions of the same debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.20.39 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. The case law section should include only descriptive comments such as "In US v Miller" the Court stated" and then followed by direct quotes from the ruling. Commentary by lawyers, scholars, attorney generals, and what not can be included in either the "commentary" section or a new section titled something like "Commentary on case law".141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. In Miller there is no foreword of what the case was about; attention is immediately directed to a Law Review comment footnote; the Court ruling is quoted, but no footnote ref. to a page No.; the 'often cited by gun-rights advocates' is referenced to 'the misconstruction of U.S. v. Miller (Huh? Miller was a landmark case for the gun-grabbers); and it ends with 'Miller...failed to give either side a...victory', which referenced to a footnote comment from yet another malcontent. The case couldn't be downplayed or ridiculed more. Let's show the Court some respect. If agreeable, I can supply the missing data and remove the fluff. (Truwik (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Link to the Miller case at the Supreme Court web site as a place to start. This link or another that links directly to the case should be used as part of the footnote.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/425/435/141.154.12.116 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In case the above was not clear I am agreeable to including missing data and remove the fluff. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to links but I think the bare pertinent facts of these cases should be here in this article. (Truwik (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

The link should be included as part of the footnote and not as part of the body of the article. This is the internet age, and a link to the actual text of the court case is the least that can be expected from "good editors". Sorry if I was not clear.141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That would work. The 'meat' of the case should be here (for those who want a printout) and a link would allow readers to view the quote in context - and assure them of its accuracy. (Truwik (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

U.S. v. Cruikshank

The quote: "to bear arms for a lawful purpose" is attributed to the Cruikshank decision "with respect to the meaning of the amendment." However, that quote is not in that case. As we can see from the indented quote, the "lawful purposes" phrase was in the 2nd & 10th 'counts', which the Court held as 'defective.' It should be removed. It would leave readers with the impression that Cruikshank only limited federal infringement to what Congress deemed to be 'lawful purposes' for arms. (Truwik (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Agree with either the removal or changing of cited text. This is just one example of the larger issue of contamination of court opinion by later 3rd party commentary in the current version of the article. The case law section should be limited exclusively to court opinion. A new section can be added for "Commentary on Case Law" if editors feel the need. I find the current level of 3rd party contamination of case law unacceptable.

Cruikshank -It looks like the 10th count is the same as the 2nd - only using different language - both were found defective. From Cruikshank http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."

The next eight counts are a repetition of the first eight, except that, instead of the words "band together," the words "combine, conspire, and confederate together" are used. Three of the defendants were found guilty under the first sixteen counts, and not guilty under the remaining counts.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anastrophe - consensus on lede

Failure to include the fact that the the amendment bars "infringement" by Congress has been mentioned on this discussion page as constituting "censorship" of the central theme of the Second Amendment. I agreed. Nobody disagreed. The consensus is limited but it is there.

Truwik states the following

I agree. Omitting the central theme of the 2A amounts to censoring - not editing. I would just add this: The 'old school' understanding of 'infringed' was an absolute bar against federal legislation on the subject. That is evidenced by the fact that there was no such legislation until the NFA of 1934 - a period of 143 years. (I just added a State Supreme Court's acknowledgement of this. See last quote in Nunn v. State of Georgia.) In that Act, Congress infringed on non-militia type weapons, and the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller) OK'd it. Thus was born the 'new school.' However, Heller says the 2A restriction now applies to individual-type weapons - thus all weapons - so the 'old school is back, at least as to future federal laws. (Truwik (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

To find a more broad consensus on the into and whether it should include the fact that the amendment bars "infringement" by Congress, I now ask you whether you are for or against inclusion of that comment into the intro.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Against, for several reasons. First, I find calling it a pre-existing right to be excessively POV, especially for the lede. Second, unlike the first amendment, this amendment does not speak to whom may not infringe. Also, in the case of the first amendment, even though it clearly reads "Congress shall pass no law...," SCOTUS has interpreted this as applying to all three branches, so I expect that none of the three branches may infringe this right. Finally, along the same lines, "shall pass no law" is meaningless to the other branches, so that phrase is meaningless to the rights enumerated in the first amendment and so I think that overemphasis on the literal phrase "shall not be infringed" is a distraction from the meaning of this amendment and therefore does not belong in the lede of this article. I would not be opposed to a tiny, well-cited mention of it somewhere in the body. Celestra (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

'Pre-existing right' isn't a POV, history is replete with evidence of the arms-right existing prior to the amendment. For example, in Nunn v. Georgia (1846) the court said "is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature." And the amendment itself says the right pre-existed, if no one had the right prior to the 2A, how could Congress possibly infringe on it? Confusion arises from viewing the amendment out of its Bill of Rights context. Viewed separately it appears as a proclamation to the world-at-large - a sort of 'don't tread on me' - and many see it that way. But back in context it is just one of the "restrictive clauses" (see its Preamble) intended "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers." It begins with "Congress shall make no law..." etc.; the 9th Amend. says this restrictive theme applies to all rights whether enumerated therein or not; and the 10th Amend. reminds Congress that "powers not delegated to the United States...are reserved to...States...or to the People." Thus the Second Amendment restriction applies exclusively to Congress, and as Heller held, to "the federal government" which included the judicial branch. (That is, if congress infringes, the federal courts are not supposed to agree to it, and thus create case-law.) The "shall make no law...is meaningless to the rights enumerated in the first amendment" is too irrational for comment. The "'shall not be infringed' is a distraction from the meaning of this amendment'" has merit. If that distraction were removed, the amendment would read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms," which, of course, clears it right up - all we need is 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and we're home free. (Truwik (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Consensus now stands at 2 for and one against. Consensus is still for change. For the record I am for changing.141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For Celestra, and others, I would add this: The 'Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging...' (of the 1st A) didn't mean there were to be no laws concerning those rights. It only meant the just-created federal government was to exercise no power over rights - such power being reserved (10th A). For example, some time ago (I think in Ariz.), Indians were smoking marijuana as part of their religious ceremony, which that state's law had criminalized. The state court upheld their law - reasoning that not everything man wants to do can be practiced under the guise of religion. If not agreeable with that case, surely all editors would agree with that reasoning. What if someone believed he must rob a non-Christian Bank every Sunday and give the booty to his pastor, or he wont go to heaven? Should the state provide him with guns and ammo, or arrest his pastor for advocating such nonsense? The Bill of Rights simply forbad the national government from entering that arena - it has no other purpose. Thus the 2A is not about the 'right' (and all the ways that right can be mis-used, and what everybody, who is anybody, has said about it) it's about to whom "shall not be infringed" applies, which is only the federal government. If editors can accept that truth, everything about the right could be eliminated from this article. (Truwik (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Acting outside of concensus and in violation of 3RR

141.154.12.116 - Please stop trying to remove that section. I happen to agree with you that there is undue weight given to that interpretation, but removing well cited material is not the way to go. If you will step back a bit and look at the article instead of the amendment, I think you will see that your current approach is not profitable. Celestra (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you happen to agree than why are you acting against your beliefs?

Wiki rules state that minuscule minority opinions do not belong in an article. By obstructing the removal of one such opinion you are in violation of NPOV

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

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Lastly I am not in violation of 3RR. I made 2 revisions today and changed the language of another section to reflect discussion board consensus.141.154.12.116 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm acting in alignment with my beliefs on how to deal with conflict resolution. 3RR doesn't refer to your day, it refers to three reverts in a 24 hour period. Your first was around 20:00 yesterday and your third was around 19:00 today. Seriously, you need to reevaluate the effectiveness of agressive presentation in influencing people. Celestra (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to start a discussion on a number of items I think have issues. You will find hem all overt this talk page. You will also find your name conspiciously absent from those discussions. Do not berate me for the mote in my eye, when you have a beam in yours.

Also please be advised that you are in violation of NPOV as is Yaf and SMP

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

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

The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith for a moment and answer you candidly. I don't bother joining discussions unless I see some value in sharing my view. If the discussion is starting with an inflammatory, aggressive presentation that is doomed to never be part of any eventual consensus, why should I waste my time? Why should anyone take part in bickering like that? If you want to have more participation in these discussions, you need to tone it down and look for ways to improve what is already here through compromise. Regarding NPOV, you should understand that your opinion of the size of that viewpoint differs from the consensus. You need to convince the other editors that this is such a minority opinion that it does not merit inclusion. Celestra (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Have added a second cite for the "civic duty" viewpoint. It is not an extreme minority viewpoint. Whether or not it is the "correct" viewpoint is an entirely different matter. All major viewpoints, including the more common minority viewpoints, should be in this article for it to achieve balance. This viewpoint falls into this category. Yaf (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Have added a 3rd cite fo the "civic duty" viewpoint. It is not an extreme minority viewpoint. Yaf (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One of your cites was the Head of the Brady Campaign - check you edit, you will find the following author=Helmke, Paul Additionally David Konig is one of the Joyce Foundation stable of "talking heads" and not an reliable source on the Second Amendment

LASTLY and MOST importantly the dispute is over the term "civic RIGHT" and NOT "civic DUTY"!

Not only have you failed to support your position but you have further contaminated the article with biased opinion from a gun control group.

Looks like you are batting a SOLID ZIP! With friends like you, who needs enemies.

Due to continuing lack of additional sources for the "civic RIGHT" theory I am again deleting a small minority opinion with total following of about 1 person.141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a consensus, it would help if you explained what "remove that section" refers to. And 'revert' and 'revise' are not the same thing. To 'revise' is to alter a passage to a form that didn't before exist. To 'revert' is to change what exists back to a previous form. (Truwik (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't need a consensus to delete a small minority opinion. Wiki rules state that minuscule opinions, whether true or not, "do not belong" in a wiki article.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

your argument may have merit. i haven't followed it closely, partly because the delivery of the argument has been tendentious, verbose, and is coming from an IP account (just stating the reality from my perspective). if the citations that are being proferred have to do with 'civic duty', then they are far afield of the right codified in the 2A - duties, being obligations, are clearly not synonymous with rights. Anastrophe (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The disputed opinion is about a "civic RIGHT" not "civic DUTY". Ain't no such animal as a civic "Right"! Which is probably why the total worldwide following of the civic "right" opinion is about 1 person.141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yaf now adding Brady Center propaganda to article - additional POV violation

This refers to his recent addition attempting to use Paul Heimke, president of the Brady Center as a SOURCE. Heimke is NOT a "source". I don't even give Yaf a "nice try" on this one. It looks more like a attempt to OWN the article then anything else.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009902260331

“If the case had gone the other way, there are thousands of people who currently are prohibited from buying guns who would have been allowed to buy guns,” said Paul Heimke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Women in abusive relationships would have been more at risk. Police officers responding to domestic violence calls would have been more at risk.”141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not adding "Brady" propaganda to the article; only text with cited sources verifying the added text that shows that the "civic duty" viewpoint is not an extreme minority viewpoint. There are also citeable Halbrook and NRA-ILA viewpoints that largely counter the "civic duty" viewpoints, but which I could not add first, as it would be perceived to be adding imbalanced content :-) It is more productive to focus on understanding Wikipedia better, rather than attacking individual editors, personally. (If you knew my edit history better, you would't be claiming I am personally at all sympathetic to the Brady Campaign, but that is largely irrelevant :-) Please try to learn more about Wikipedia policies. Likewise, it would likely be more productive for you to get a user name, and to start learning about Wikipedia policies, if you wish to contribute productively to Wikipedia, rather than making wild accusations of sockpuppets against editors with which you disagree (here). From my experience, it is best not to walk into a bar and immediately start picking fights. Take a booth, sit back quietly, drink a cold one, and watch a while, while you learn about the Wikipedia community. Then contribute bunches! OK? Yaf (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Check you edit, you will find the following author=Helmke, Paul - You are adding Brady Campaign propaganda The dispute is over the "civic RIGHT" viewpoint and not the civic DUTY viewpoint Halbrook probably dumps a whole lot of soft brown stuff on the "civic RIGHTS" viewpoint. I don't see that making him a supporting source. wWhatever your sympathies,it is a fact that you added Brady Campaign propaganda to this article

Regarding thesockpupet accusation,it was against Philo-Centinel and Conlawgeek, both of who have been repeatedly attempting to revise the same portion of the article. Something you should have noticed even with only a occasional check of the article. Since I was asking for a sockpuppet investigation I asked for a check toe see if SaltyBoatr was connected as well. I doubt that they are the same person, but I would not be surpise if they are connected somehow. My advise is to pay a bit more attention to what is going on around you and a bit less stroking your ego.

As for starting a fight I am not teh one that started it. I am just refusing to FINISH it. I repeatedly asked for objections to the change I wanted made and a funny thing happened, one person objected but could not come up with a valid objection. Then 3 people who had NOT objected but had ample opportunity to do so started a fight. It seems that the person whose position on the Second Amendment I most dislike has in fact acted like an adult while the other 3 act like spoiled children bitching about not having everything their way.

As for me sitting back and letting you OWN the article, you should read the following. I found in a place close t home. YOUR home.

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

English Background

The crime of affray was a major limit on the right to travel armed and the game laws another serious limit. Tucker recognized this fact in the passage quoted --so if we are being honest we need to change the text to reflect this fact.Conlawgeek (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

which passage are you referring to? there are no quotes in the article that even mention the crime of affray. Anastrophe (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue raised calls attention to the reality that the "English Common Law" section seriously violates WP:SYN. I say we delete the entire section and start over using reliable tertiary sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Riding armed in terror of the King's peace constituted the crime of affray which was defined by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch. 3 discussed by conlawgeek. American law in the 19th century divided over the continuing relevance of this crime after the adoption of express provisions on the right to bear arms-- which provides more support for the notion that American law has been contested on the meaning of this right since at least the 19th centuryPhilo-Centinel (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Statute of Northampton was dead law at the time of the American Revolution - see below or more info141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statute of Northhampton was DEAD law at time of the American Revolution

It was replaced by a declaration from William and Mary which was later codified in the English Bill of Rights.

From Heller

They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed

Also it seems that he last king of England to try to use that law and others like it to disarm the populace faced a foreign invasion by protestants and had to get the hell out of Dodge, lest some of those guns be used on his person. The invasion was led by a certain William of Orange who with his wife Mary then proceeded to give Protestants an assurance that they would never be disarmed. This assurance later codified into law and included in the English Bill of Rights.

The Game Acts of 1692 and 1706 omitted guns from the list of items people were forbidden to possess

http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA600&lpg=PA600&dq=statute+of+northampton&source=bl&ots=OpL2LMrbuR&sig=-5AUT2FTx0-2SQJv9_sbnSvxGGc&hl=en&ei=ELnBSeuuGaaxtweDzO36Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA601,M1

141.154.12.116 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the source quoted. The crime of affray, which the Statute of Northampton, first defined remained part of American law after the Revolution. See State v. Huntley (State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843).) There is another case from the same period that cuts the other way and takes a more robutst view of the right to bear arms. The game acts, which were different, had been reinterpreted by the end of the 18th century. Anyway, this section is not about America after the Revolution but about the English background. Please restore previous version. If this is not done I will do so when I next have the chance. Conlawgeek (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to read your own backup material. Nobody here will dispute that disturbing the peace is a crime

The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Robert S. Huntly, late of the county aforesaid, laborer, on the first day of September, in the present year, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did arm himself with pistols, guns, knives, and other dangerous and unusual weapons, and being so armed, did go forth and exhibit himself openly, both in the daytime and in the night, to the good citizens of Anson aforesaid, and in the said highway and before the citizens aforesaid, did openly and publicly declare a purpose and intent, one James H. Ratcliff and other good citizens of the State, then and there being in the peace of God and of the State, to beat, wound, kill, and murder, which said purpose and intent, the said Robert S. Huntley, so openly armed and exposed and declaring, then (p.419)and there had and entertained, by which said arming, exposure, exhibition, and declarations of the said Robert S. Huntley, divers good citizens of the State were terrified, and the peace of the State endangered, to the evil example of all others in like cases offending, to the terror of the people, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

The court also said - directly opposing your interpretation

But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While the American law had been liberalized by the time this case was decided, I think you will find that the English law was more restrictive during the colonial era. The Condcuctor Generalis, a widely reprinted text in the 18th century provided an extensive discussion of the crime of affray. It noted that a gentleman riding armed would not constitute an affray, which suggests that class based restrictions of the type reaffirmed in the English Bill of Rights were well established under English law prior to the Revolution Philo-Centinel (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To repeat

But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun141.154.12.116 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA600&lpg=PA600&dq=statute+of+northampton&source=bl&ots=OpL2LMrbuR&sig=-5AUT2FTx0-2SQJv9_sbnSvxGGc&hl=en&ei=ELnBSeuuGaaxtweDzO36Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA602,M1

In 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - if the right to arms protected armed groups, He said

The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Huntley case demonstrates that the crime of affray existed after the Revolution-- the scope of the right to have arms was clearly broader after the Revolution-- that is the whole point-- Tucker was saying that the American right was more robust. The 1780 English comment was after the Revolution. Nobody disputes that the English law evolved more liberally over the course of the 18th century. The suggestions for this part of the article had to do with the scope of the pre-existing right under English law. It seems to me that crime of affray, the limits imposed by the game laws, and Tucker's comments all suggest that this part of the article is simply historically wrong. The English right to have arms prior to the era of the American Revolution was quite narrow-- which is exactly Tucker's point. I suggest someone else change this section to reflect the real history and law-- if I do it I will likely be attacked as part of some nefarious conspiracy.Conlawgeek (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading this again

The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable.141.154.12.116 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Right of Revolt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Adams stated

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

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

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

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

Samuel Adams stated

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

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

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

Conlawgeek

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

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

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

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

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

Trial of the Wards (1854)

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

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