Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

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

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

where the judge states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two counts were illegal possession of a firearm and carrying same within 1,000 feet of a school. Walters probably couldn't win the latter count - everyone is supposed to know the law. The illegal possession count could depend on whether Walters was insane or a convicted felon (and thus prohibited by law from possessing firearms). If he was otherwise legally eligible to possess a firearm, then it would turn on whether the circumstances were similar to the Heller case. If so, he could cite Heller as precedent, and the lower federal court would be bound by it. The question is: Why was Walters' possession of a firearm illegal? (Truwik (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Rupert Walters, Jr., of Estate Pastory, was arrested (Apr. 14, 2008) and charged with Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm and Possession of a Controlled subsance. The firearm was a Taurus 38 Special, and the substance was marijuana. Walters told police he found the gun "in a trash can" and did not have a permit for it. (http://www.vipd.gov.vi/press_releases/show-press-release.aspx?id=2.) The unlawful possession of a firearm in a school zone was under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A): "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." The unauthorized possession was under 14 U.S.C. 2253(a), which deals exclusively with the Coast Guard, and was a mistake, 18 U.S.C. 2253(a) deals with forfeiture of property to the federal government. Since Walters did not acquire the firearm legally, I don't see that he has a chance of using Heller. (Truwik (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

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

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

Next on the list

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

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

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

The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right of Revolt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Adams stated

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

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

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

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

Samuel Adams stated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody seems to have said what in the "right to revolt" addition was original research, nor what was "synthesized". The right exists and already has an article devoted to it in wikipedia.68.160.162.23 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Right to revolt is certainly related to firearms, and it is also related to food and clothing. In the Revolutionary War men froze and starved to death at Valley Forge, should we have sections on proper nutrition and clothing for a successful revolt? And how best to keep your powder dry? C'mon. (Truwik (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Trial of the Wards (1854)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I restored it. The cited quotation due to the former US Atty General was contained in the content that was removed. This interpretation of 2A history is highly relevant. It belongs here. Yaf (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please take a moment to explain why coverage of this obscure 19th Century incident in state law is relevant in this federal article? I dispute that it is "highly relevant", it is at best a minor curiosity, trivial today. Point to the reliable sourcing gives "highly relevant" coverage, I have looked and the coverage is brief and passing at best. The Ward case (as with Bliss) are too trivial to give coverage in this mainstream article, clear violations of WP:UNDUE policy. Explain your WP:OWN defensive for this passage, going on for more than a year now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The content in question is:

Reference to Bliss is seen in the defense argument subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. 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 importance is that the successful defense in this case by a former US Atty General specifically provides an example of state law being guided by an interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Saul Cornell is considered reliable sourcing by most historians. "Hearsay" is not applicable here. Rather, "hearsay" in terms of published content in reliable and verfiable sources is instead citeable in terms of supporting article text regarding this early interpretation of the Second Amendment. Subsequent article text then states that this early interpretation of the Second Amendment has largely vanished, save for two states. Seems highly relevant to me, unless one supports the goal to suppress much of the early history of Second Amendment interpretations. But, Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. Yaf (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If a historian isn't aware of the usage of the term "well regulated" during the Revolutionary War ere, then he can hardly be called a reliable source. If he knows what it means and then lies in order to push is pet theory, then he is most certainly NOT a reliable source.68.160.162.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Yaf, you said: "The cited quotation due to the former US Atty General was contained in the content that was removed." Where? Your Ward-case account quotes the Kentucky court and what Cornell said about it, but there is nothing therein that is attributed to "the former US Atty General." Your next statement: "...this case by a former US Atty General specifically provides...an interpretation of the Second Amendment..." is pure POR. The Ward trial made no mention of the 2A, and you obviously have no reliable source to backup your claim, that it did. Remove the Ward case. (Truwik (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

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

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

Lets start with some givens

People have inalienable rights

One of those rights is the right to life

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

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

From Brown v US on what a Bil of Attainder is

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

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

From the New Hampshire Constitution on when rights can be deprived

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

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

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

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

From Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Heller had held the D.C. handgun ban ordinance to be a bill of attainder, rather than a violation of the 2A, it would still have been unconstitutional, which I think is more appropriate, and would be better understood. (Truwik (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Right to revolt suffers from OR and POV problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

David C. Williams, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 9780300095623 (see chapter 4 especially pg 146[1]), argues that the right of revolution is not founded or protected by the Second Amendment, but rather that it is an entirely separate natural right. The article section advanced by anonIP editor and his WP:SYN reading of original documents seems far off base from mainstream scholarly interpretation of the 2A and should be deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, certainly. A reliable tertiary sources can easily found describing that minority opinion, see for instance DJ Mulloy, Routledge, ISBN 9780415326742, see pg 86[2] and page 124[3], etc.. I acknowledge that the 'right of revolution' aka 'right of insurrection' is a key opinion in the later half of the Twentieth Century, espoused especially by the radical modern militia movement and their sympathizers. Mostly I object to AnonIP's sourcing by use of improper synthesis of original documents, and the presentation wording as if it was 'fact'. This is at best a significant fringe opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couldn't resist the title!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spooner?

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

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

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

From Heller

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

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

Lysander Spooner, an Antebellum era anarchist, had a public opinion about a 'right of revolution' which drew upon the Second Amendment to make his argument. The thoughts of an anarchist from 150 years ago do not likely match the present day mainstream point of view on the "insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment" found in the bulk of reliable sourcing. See[4] and [5]. The clear pattern in the reliable sourcing points to advocacy work surrounding the modern militia movement in the middle of the 1990s, see especially the 1995 paper by Colonel Dunlap which drew scholarly attention. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

http://www.lysanderspooner.org

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

Even those pro-salvery conceded his legal arguments were strong

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

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

Milnivlek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Stevens dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the dissent state

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

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

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

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

Issues with recent citation by SaltyBoatr

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

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

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

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

Actual text from page 104 reads

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

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

To SaltyBoatrs credit he did remove the hazy statement

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

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

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

Still need a fix here

The following, which is what is currently in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5 starts on page 88. See here[6] for a Google book view of the first page of the chapter. There are variations in the way to format book citations, see[7], would you prefer Ely listed second? Sorry, you are really off base. There is plenty of reliable sourcing describing the emphasis on new scholarly work focusing anew on the 'individual rights' view after the 1989 Sanford Levinson Yale Law Review article which served as a watershed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I think the ruling has nothing to do with military type weapons. Th statement specifically was about "self defense" and not about bearing weapons in defense of your State, or the US.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the only reason those bans are still in place..."??? That sounds like a wishful rationalization without any basis other that your intense imagination. Did you read the article[8]? About eighty federal court cases challenging gun bans on Second Amendment grounds have been heard in the eight months since Heller and in every case the ban was upheld as being constitutional under the Second Amendment. How does "shall not infringe" comport with eighty court cases validating constitutional gun ban rulings? Clearly there is more going on here than the dictionary definition, or the gun rights slogan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Infringed" in context of the Second Amendment is a very subtle word easily misinterpreted and manipulated for political reasons. The dictionary definition means one thing where the use in context of the reasonable regulation status quo of the Second Amendment appears quite different. It appears that you are advocating for the fringe gun advocacy position "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?", and that is inappropriate in this encyclopedia article. See the recent book by Brian Doherty ISBN 9781933995250 page xvi who touches on this concept[9]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

infringe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next from the majority opinion on Heller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed change

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

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

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

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

Further revised to

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But it does protect against state and local government infringement. All of the bill of rights do (well, other than the 10th). If your local police violate the 4th amendment, it protects you by invalidating that evidence. If a local judge orders you to violate the 5th amendment under protest, that testimony can be thrown out on appeal. And if a state or local government violates the 2nd amendment, that can be challenged in court, as in Heller. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it applies to all parts of the government. The "all parts of the US government" is the most accurate, but I would still not put that into the lede. It is assumed that the bill of rights exists to protect these rights from infringement by the government, that is their entire reason for being. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the courts it does not. Only the "privileges or immunities" inherent in being a US citizens are protected against state infringement. Those "privileges or immunities" have been expanded to most of the Bill of Rights, by way of the 14th Amendment, through a legal theory called "incorporation". The right to keep and bear arms has not yet been incorporated. The NRA is working on it through some of their post Heller suits. My own personal opinion that since the states insisted on adding the right to keep and bear arms as a protected right, within the Bill of Rights, they implicitly acknowledge that right. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that. From catching up on reading, it does seem that incorporation could still happen; it seems a little presumptuous to claim applicability of the amendment in the lede, since it's a pretty subtle question that is more fully explained in the later section about case law. Gigs (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While it may be presumptuous to indicate that the Second Amendment applies to states, the new proposed lede states only that it applies against the feds. A number of court cases clearly support that and it is accepted legal fact.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious SaltyBoatr places no importance at all on Supreme Court decisions that declare what the law means. Every High Court decision, that addressed the meaning of the 2A, has agreed that "shall not be infringed" applies exclusively to the federal government, but to some editors that amounts to Original Research. Leaving that fact out of the intro, to me, would almost amount to treason. (Truwik (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

(Indent) I think it's a far too subtle and unsettled point to include in the lede. The article should definitely talk about the applicability and the current cases by the NRA that seek to cause a ruling of incorporation... Just not in the lede, IMO. Why not write a preface to the historical cases section that gives them some context? I'll give that a go. Gigs (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases? I think that only one case has been appealed, and cert has not been yet granted. Therefore, at best, we can say that the NRA hopes to achieve... And WP:FUTURE limits what can be speculated, so I doubt much can be said here now.

If by cert you mean certiatori, the appeals court does get to choose what it hears. That is only the Supreme Court. Once the appeal is heard and decided, then the loser can try to get the Supreme Court interested.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If by 'certiatori' you mean certiorari, it doesn't matter. Whether the 2A is incorporated, or not, will have no affect on the unassailable fact that it applies to the federal government now. It has always applied to the federal government, and even if the 2A is altered to read "shall be infringed unmercifully" it would still apply to the federal government. This Article is supposed to provide a comprehensive up-to-date resource for the legal field. Thus, lest we lead the entire legal establishment astray, the intro must declare to whom "shall not" applies. (Truwik (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Spelling of legal terms obviously isn't my specialty. I'm more into history.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

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

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

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

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

Now that the dust is beginning to settle after Heller, I recommend reading this eye popping and insightful UCLA Law Review article[10] about the aftermath of the decision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Just curious what strikes you as 'not neutral'? In a nutshell, Scalia's logic in Heller amounted to an answer to Glen Harlan Reynolds 1996 Reason letter[11], whereby with a solid interpretation giving protection of an individual right to firearms for self defense "that gun owners would have less reason to fear creeping confiscation, and sensible gun control laws -- those aimed at disarming criminals, not ordinary citizens -- would pass much more easily. " This isn't a neutral versus non-neutral observation, but rather it seems to be the new status quo in the district courts, with virtually all the gun control laws now being confirmed as constitutional while simultaneously, the individual rights of the law abiding is solidly protected. This is fascinating how this has played out in the last nine months. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Dozens"? Please cite and quote one. Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.11.202 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no weight given to what I (or you) say. What matters is what the reliable sourcing says. In the case of "infringement" I see that the reliable sourcing says that all sorts of restrictions on firearms are allowed as constitutional under the Second Amendment. What Justice Scalia ruled[12] has much more importance than your original research using your interpretation of the dictionary definition, and more importantly, the "longstanding prohibition" laundry list exception in Heller is now shaking out to be the tipping point. Did you read the UCLA Law Review article[13] about this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Scalia ruled that the collective rights view was worthy of the "mad hatter"

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If SaltyBoatr refuses to acknowledge the 2A's purpose, how could he be taken seriously, here, anymore? His statement "all sorts of restrictions on firearms are allowed as constitutional under the Second Amendment" is true, as to past federal restrictions from U.S. v. Miller to Heller, but no longer. In Heller (p. 53) the Court said: "We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. (Truwik (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

He talks big, and he knows the ins and outs of getting you banned. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How is one banned? Didn't I read somewhere SaltyBoatr was banned once? I should think cramming the article with irrelevent fillers would be grounds for that. (Truwik (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

He and Yaf have gotten me banned 4 times now. The current ban is a ban on IP uses, aimed speciically at me, from editing the article teh article and ends on the 6th.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of "foisting"

Salty Boatr just added a statement that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court rulings are another thing. I have been keeping track and can specifically identified about 70 post-Heller federal court cases challenging gun laws on 2nd Amendment basis, and all of these rulings have been in favor of the gun bans. I have hesitated to put these in the article because, in my opinion, direct readings of court documents are original research. Are you asking me to put a list of 40 rulings of these 70 cases into the article? Alternately, we can wait until Professor's Winkler's article[14] gets published in June in the journal of the UCLA Law Review, as he has counted 80 post-Heller 2A cases upholding gun laws. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should that have been mentioned? What happened is that four municipalities voluntarily repealed their handgun ban ordinances, and saved the high cost of fighting the lawsuit in court. The fifth municipality did fight the lawsuit in court, and won[15]. The handgun ban was ruled constitutional. It is reasonable to guess that the four municipalities could have also won their court cases banning handguns too had they been willing the spend the money on the legal fees. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I did identify about 14 representative cases using reliable secondary sourcing[16]. That is not good enough for you? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"regulated"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not opposed to a brief mentiion of 'militia', that is the primary reason the 2A restriction was added. However, whether the militia is well-regulated, trained, well-equipped or not doesn't affect the amendment's purpose. Congress has never, knowingly, infringed on militia-type weapons, however the various state militias were organized. (Truwik (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Congress has knowingly infringed on a ton of militia type weapons. For instance,the machine gun ban, clip size regulations, regulations against automatic weapons, regulations prohibiting conversion of semiauto to full auto, even the ban on sawed off shotguns. The military used short barrel shotguns to clear up holdouts in tunnels during the Grenada invasion. The shorter barrel gives a faster reaction time. Of importance when your life depends on how fact you can train your weapon on the enemy I heard that from someone who went into those tunnels. Sawed off shotguns, while certainly easier to hide then the standard shotgun, are quite a bit harder to hide then a pistol.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. The machinegun ban I had in mind, was the tommy-gun (seen in old movies). And you're right about sawed-off shotguns, I've read where they were general issue in WWI. (U.S. v. Miller was about one - I just added some data there.) (Truwik (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

My original point was that the wording of the prefatory clause isn't material to the amendment's purpose. It could have read: "Because a rag-tag bunch of illiterate ner-do-wells are occassionally summoned for Militia duty, the right...[etc.]," and the operative clause (shall not be infringed) would still have the same meaning. (Truwik (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

The Supreme Court said the same thing.

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.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Background - English Common Law

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

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

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

The Court was reminding 'petitioners and the dissent' that if their position is 'only for military purposes' they can't have the militia 'killing game' as individuals, unconnected with a militia, would do. While this indirectly involved the militia-scope of the right, it was denounced as crazy. (Truwik (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

The court is addressing the collective rights viewpoint, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bar arms can only be exercised by bona fide members of a government sanctioned and organized militia. And you are right, this viewpoint was denounced as "crazy".68.160.162.23 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Heller Court cases listed by SaltyBoatr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What 'reliable sourcing' are you reading? You assert: "...considered notable in that they accomplished...", who is the "they"? When I check for notability I see notability given in the advocacy weblogs and in the advocacy press, but not elsewhere. Point to some WP:RS examples of notability please. And what was accomplished? The reporting at the time said that what was accomplished was the saving of court costs: "Fighting in court to try to keep the law would cost money the village does not have"[17]. It is a logical fallacy found in the advocacy blogs and press that this was a legal victory, when in the mainstream press it was reported as legal intimidation of a deep pocket lawsuit. Consider that the one lawsuit of these five NRA lawsuits that actually was ruled upon by a court was lost and under current Illinois legal precedent, handgun bans are legal[18]. The other four lawsuits which were settled and withdrawn to save embarrassment[19] and legal fees hardly amounts to a notable accomplishment. Tell me, I ask again, what sourcing are you reading? I answered your question. I have asked you several questions, please be civil and answer each. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

my apologies - yes, you did respond, i overlooked it within your reply. my misreading, my mistake. oops. thanks for the reply. i'll note that i have not read any advocacy blogs on the matter. i do my best to avoid reading advocacy either for or against these matters, unless it has to do with article improvement. reading advocacy blogs is not something i waste my spare time doing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Anastrophe doggedly avoids revealing the sources for his opinions. Over and over and over. Only once in the last month did he mention a source for one of his assertions[20], and that source was an editorial opinion piece by the head of the NRA lobbying arm[21], Chris Cox. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

what are you implying? that i'm lying? Anastrophe (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago suburb bans, Evanston

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

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

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

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

an also

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

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

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

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

NPOV and excessive use of the term "individual"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago bans upheld based on "Presser v Illinois"; Heller not considered

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

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

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

Spooner and Story

The focus on Spooner makes it seem like he was a mainstream theorist when he was clearly a radical abolitionist who thought slaves had a 2nd Amendment right of revolution-- sort of in the John Brown camp-- important to be sure, influential perhaps, but certainly not typical.

Story is, however, very important, and was cited in Heller and has been claimed by all sides in this debate. Conlawgeek (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

are you trying to imply that slaves DON'T have the right to fight for their freedom? and should remain slaves?68.160.162.23 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny how whenever we try to discuss law or history we always come back to these ideological issues. Do you seriously think a slave could waltz into court claim a Second Amendment right to use a gun to kill his master? Is our goal here to write something useful or turn this into another gun rights chat room? Conlawgeek (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Eve funnier is how you avoid the question. Does a slave have the right to fight for his freedom, or should he stay a slave forever?68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You see coverage of Joseph Story throughout the WP:RS, many dozens of times, and Spooner is barely mention. Additionally the passage that was in the article was dubiously sourced to a website. Searching the WP:RS books I see very few mentions of Spooner, a paltry two, brief mentions in the Halbrook and the Cornell books. Spooner is too WP:Fringe to merit inclusion in this high profile article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spooner got a mention in Heller, Cornell didn't. By that standard Cornell and his itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy view that the Second Amendment rotects a "civic Right" should have been deleted. I noticed that when I tried deleting that itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy opinion, you were one of the people putting it back in the article.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We all know, you have told us several dozen times now, that you dispute that the book by Saul Cornell published by the Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 is a reliable source. Please take your dispute to the proper forum, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Let's hear that they say. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

at issue is not whether the source is reliable, the issue is whether a minority opinion, which for purposes of discussion may be characterized as 'fringe' due to the extremely few references to it found in reliable sourcing (much like spooner), is being given undue weight per NPOV. it's important that content disputes be accurately characterized.Anastrophe (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with Cornell, only one of which is his itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy opinion, others include the fact that he was the beneficiary of a $400,000 grant from the pro gun control Joyce Foundation making his impartiality more then a bit suspect, his continuing ties to the Joyce Foundation, his participation as editor in a Joyce Foundation "bought and paid for" issue of a law journal whose sole purpose was to push the collective rights viewpoint and which barred oposing pro-individual rights authors, the fact that he is the most cited authority by a factor greater then 2, the fact that as a historian he should be aware of what the term "well regulated" meant to the Founding Fathers, he doesn't seem to be. Let's also not forget his comment (currently in dispute on this talk page) that in Cruikshank the courts ruled in favor of a collective militia based rights view of the second amendment when the word militia doesn't even appear in Cruikshank. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On March 4th I identified seven leading scholars in reliable sourcing on this topic that discussed the 'civic' model Cornell, Shalhope, Warnken, Konig, Primus, Uviller and Merkel. This is not a 'fringe' opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

were the other six discussing cornell's model? if so, six scholars noting what one other scholar has written does not even remotely constitute a significant view per NPOV. not when braced against the reliable sourcing that discusses the 'individual right' model and the 'collective right model'. Anastrophe (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is not the same as being a follower of the "civic right" interpretation. I for instance am currently discussing it, and I thinks it stinks worse then a cesspool. BTW: You never did provide link to those discussions, so all I have is your word that the discussion took place. FYI: Your word doesn't smell like a rose.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you don't get it. Have you read any mainstream books on this topic? Or, are you focused just on the gun blog ideology? I find your 'it stinks' opinion odd considering that the hypothesis not otherwise discredited by the gun advocacy blogs, see www.saf.org[22], www.firearmsandliberty.com[23] and www.guncite.com[24] for instance. The whole 'civic' model described by Saul Cornell is actually mainstream, and closely related to the influential 'civic republicanism' hypothesis in vogue during the late 18th Century advanced by Niccolò Machiavelli. Do you recognize the Machiavellian concept of "civic republicanism"?[25] David Williams influential article Civic republicanism and the citizen militia : the terrifying Second Amendment in the Yale Law Review also touches on this concept which Saul Cornell terms the "civic right". Would you prefer that we call it 'civic republicanism'? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is as mainstream why did the Supreme Court not even mention it in Heller, and why didn't Cornell himself not mention it in the historians brief co-authored with Carl T BOGUS, well known "top dog" Joyce Foundation mouthpiece?68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I might have predicted we are back to gun rights conspiracy theories. Anyone with any law review experience, something that several of the people writing here clearly don't have, would tell you that law review editors jealously retain control of editorial content. I pulled the Fordham and Stanford issues and Cornell did not edit anything-- he wrote an article for each issue. I also did some research and found out that Joyce Lee Malcolm one of the scholars gun rights scholars love to quote took almost fifty thousand from the right wing Earhart foundation. Scholars need money to do research-- I care less about the money and more about the content. I am glad someone has mentioned civic republianism-- the Yale Law Journal devoted an entire issue to this about twenty years ago. The Second Amendment clearly grows out of the English fear of standing armies it was part of the civic republican tradition. The right of self defense was part of the common law tradition. The two are historically different. Conlawgeek (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has researched the issue knows that the Joyce Foundation has bought out whole issues of Law Journals, including editorial control, and stuffed them with pro gun control propaganda. Cornell was editor of one of these issues.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome point about the differences between civic republican tradition and common law tradition. Pull together some WP:RS and lets put it in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Disputing removal of well cited material from one of one of the top legal writers of the mid-1800's after a hack making Spooner sound like a wild eyed loonie.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Kozuskanich

I've removed the following material for being unsourced:

Thus, Nathan Kozuskanich, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and found that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich found that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences.

If proper sourcing is added, it can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the ref. The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is solidly a reliable source per WP standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This March 2, 2009 article[26] from the Northwestern University Law Review discusses this matter also, and could be used to expand. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job Salty. :) SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr and I have removed the following as there are major problems here:

In contrast, Nathan Kozuskanich, a protege of Saul Cornell, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and writes that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich writes that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. However, Clayton Cramer notes that in this paper, Kozuskanich references Michael Bellesiles heavily without mentioning that Bellesiles was found to have committed academic fraud, and that Bellesiles resigned his academic chair at Emory University, bringing the claims of Kozuskanich regarding military usages of the term "bear arms" into question. (Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," Bellesiles resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.)

Kozuskanich is not a reliable source, having relied upon Bellesile's false claims. It would be the same as using the Hitler Diaries as a source, to use Kozuskanich. Out it goes. Yaf (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has restored that material and Yaf again removed it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ad hominen logic is wacky. If the published paper in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is not reliable, fine, make that argument. Clayton Cramer's blog is not a reliable source, yet you give it more credibility than a University Law Review. Why resort to fallacious logic? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleezy and Stupid

Now I am mad. This attack on a bright young scholar is sleezy and stupid. First, there is no reference to Bellesiles in the article in question. Arming America is mentioned in another article and is not cited as authority, but rather is cited in the context of talking about the larger controversy over counting guns. Kozuskanich cites Bellesiles and all of his major critics. Clayton Cramer's blog is pure gun rights propaganda. His article in a right wing Federalist society journal could never have been published in a top law review. Here is what the Kozuskanich note from a Rutgers Law Review aricle said:

"We may never know exactly how many guns there were in colonial America, and this essay makes no effort to substantiate or dismiss the claims of Michael Bellesiles's controversial book. See generally MICHAEL A. BELLESILES, ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN CULTURE (West 2003) (2000). Bellesiles argues that American gun culture began not with the frontier and the Revolution, but with industrialization which made firearms cheaper and readily available. See id. He bases his thesis on an examination of probate records, which he claims shows that gun ownership was the exception to the rule before the 1820s. See id. For more detailed studies of gun numbers that contradict Bellesiles, see James Lindgren & Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1777, 1819-35 (2002); see generally Randolph Roth, Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship Between Firearms, the Use of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence, 59 WM. & MARY Q. 223 (2002)."

This attack clearly discredits its author, who is nothing but a shill for the gun rights lobby who have attempted to take over this entry and hijack it for their ideological agenda. Removing the Kozuskanich evidence is simply unethical and only further discredits the gun rights trolls who live under this bridge. You have now totally discredited yourselves!Conlawgeek (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in your outrage. I strongly encourage you to edit the article to put the Kozuskanich passage back into the article. I would do so myself but I expect for Yaf to seek to get me banned if I were to do so. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

where is the outrage over conlawgeek's overt personal attacks, in contravention of NPA? so much for raising the level of discourse above this sort of nonsense. Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting in a one-sided attack on Clayton in the article through citing only Nathan's paper is not a neutral point of view. The balancing content by Clayton Cramer himself, published on his blog, with regards to raising questions of validity regarding the paper, questioning whether there was a continuance of an earlier academic fraud, was removed from the article. The one-sided attack on Clayton Cramer was then removed as well, as noted above. The point is not about an ad hominem attack on a young scholar who obtained his Ph.D. under Saul Cornell, or on Clayton Cramer. Rather, the issue is a lack of balance in presenting only one side of the story. Put both in, or leave both out. It is not a neutral point of view to present only one side of the story. As for the feigned outrage and the ad hominem attack on Clayton Cramer, I should point out that the result of Cramer's investigation into Michael Bellesiles academic fraud resulted in Bellesiles resigning his chair at Emory University, and the loss of his Bancroft Prize in 2002, as some of the original documents/records that Bellesiles claimed to have read were lost in the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. There was no way he could have read these original documents. Either we present both sides, or neither side. Doing otherwise would not be a neutral point of view. And, ad hominem attacks are not the issue here. NPOV is the issue. Yaf (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the attempts at diversion through the use of ad hominem fallacy. The core issue here is whether Clayton Cramer's personal blog meets WP:V standards for use in this encyclopedia. The answer is simple: No, Clayton Cramer's blog is not allowed. Therefore Yaf's revert[27] "rv bogus claim" which is considered 'bogus' because Cramer's blog says so, is ill founded. Would someone, perhaps Yaf, have the decency to undue Yaf's outrageous revert? Or, I will do it myself, if assurances are given that I will not be WP:3RR banned for doing so. OK? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

there's only one problem. it attempts to give greater weight to the contention that the military service meaning is predominant. the section starts by stating that some scholars believe the context was almost exclusively military. the next portion is the rebuttal of that claim - well sourced - by cramer. and then it is to be followed by a rebuttal to cramer's rebuttal? no. that POV. Anastrophe (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slippery! You argue on other days that WP:NPOV is not justification for removal of properly cited material. But today it is OK? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

you are twisting the policy. please visit WP:NPOV again and review it. when an editor adds material that obviously puts POV out of balance by giving increased weight to one view over another, then certainly the material can be deleted. are you claiming that the balance of sources favors the military usage view? what is your basis for this? we have a suggestion in the article that the military usage was predominant. that view is called into question by cramer's material. now you want to add a rebuttal that cramer was wrong. is this new material backed up by the balance of reliable sources? if not, then it's merely a POV push. Anastrophe (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting mental gymnastics. WP:NPOV says "..proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" and the Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is obviously a reliable source, so it looks like the weight shifted upon their publishing of the Kozuskanich paper. Plus, there is the recent paper published in the Northwestern University Law Review saying very similar criticisms of Clayton Cramers work. I notice that you tacitly agree that Clayton Cramers blog is not a reliable source. Therefore how exactly is Kozuskanich law review article a push? It seems more like a reliably published neutral examination of the Cramer first paper, more, it is confirmed by the Northwestern University Law Review paper. Sorry, it looks like you are arguing from your personal ideological preference, not from WP:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Look Bellesiles work has been discredited.The Kozuskanich footnote does not defend or endorse Bellesiles, it merely points out his argument and cites all of the major critiques. Look the fact is Bellesiles should not be air brushed out of the picture-- it is important that people know what he did and that he was called to account and eventually lost his job. More to the point, this discussion of him was not even in the article which exposed the shoddy research used in the Cramer essay. Moreover, publishing in a Federalist Society journal-- which has a clear ideological agenda (the journal was ranked the 500th best in America!--seems pretty weak to me. This was not the Georgetown Law Journal.) Kozuskanich published in a top law journal-- ranked in the top 60. People complain about Joyce funding for the Chicago Kent symposium, but think it is ok for the right wing Federalist society to create an army of inferior journals to advance a conservative agenda. A clear example of double standards. Philo-Centinel (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Smears aimed at Michael Bellesiles

It is worth noting that Yaf and Clayton Cramer are heavily biased in their smears and personal attacks aimed at Michael Bellesiles. In truth, Bellesiles made errors, (which human being hasn't?). Should the entire life work of every human being be discounted because they made errors? Worse, should anybody that associates with someone who made errors be considered 'bogus'? We know that Yaf says yes, everyone who has read Bellesiles, (or who knows Saul Cornell) should be considered 'bogus'. You may feel otherwise. In the interest of fairness, if anyone reading this talk page cares about fairness, editors may also want to read Michael Bellesiles side of the story[28].) SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proven liars are not acceptable sources for article material. Even secondhand , thirdhand or fourthhand.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be committing libel against a person with your statement: "proven liars". What proof do you have? Would you have the decency to be specific when you make a statement that could subject Wikipedia to a lawsuit for slander? Read WP:BLP. Bellesiles error was misattribution of the location of the probate records to the wrong county. The fact that the probate record existed seems not to have been disputed, rather the problem is that they were wrongly attributed to the adjacent county. Human error, as explained by Michael Bellesiles[29] Why describe an error as a lie? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems conclusive.

I should point out that the result of Cramer's investigation into Michael Bellesiles academic fraud resulted in Bellesiles resigning his chair at Emory University, and the loss of his Bancroft Prize in 2002, as some of the original documents/records that Bellesiles claimed to have read were lost in the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. There was no way he could have read these original documents.68.160.162.23 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki seems to have a record of the Bellesiles misconduct - and wiki currently is citing people who call him a liar.

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

Garry Wills, who had reviewed Arming America enthusiastically for the New York Times, later said, "I was took. The book is a fraud." He also told an interviewer for C-SPAN that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," lamenting that Bellesiles did not have to do it, since he had good evidence for many of his claims. Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men." [19] Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively for the Journal of American History, offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust." [20]

Another current wiki article lists the following counts of misconduct against Bellesiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

• purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, R.I. that had never existed because the decedents died intestate (i.e., without wills),
• purported to count nineteenth century San Francisco County probate inventories that had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire,
• reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible,
• misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis,
• mis-cited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,
• had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns in Vermont estates, and
• had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth.

Bellesiles misquoted sources or took quotes significantly out of context to support his theses. In one case, he quoted George Washington on the quality of the militias and misrepresented a Washington comment about three poorly prepared militia units as if it applied to the militia in general, even though Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.[9] Bellesiles also modified texts of early gun laws to change their meanings. [10]68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cramer is not the only scholar critical of Bellesiles. James Lindgren also found many issues with Bellesiles' work here:

• Fall From Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal, Yale Law Journal (2002) The final version of the 56-page review documenting problems with Arming America may be downloaded from this page at SSRN.

This all looks rather cut and dried to me. Either we include both points of view, with cites, or we include neither. But, it is clearly not NPOV to present only the Bellesiles/Kozuskanich point of view as fact in a rebuttal to Cramer's rebuttal in the article. Yaf (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is against using material from liars in articles since they are not a "reliable" source. Of course, since wiki considers "stealing is bad" a matter of opinion I could be wrong.68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kozuskanich has nothing to do with Bellesiles. All the guy did was mention him in the same footnote that he mentions all of his serious academic critics. Cramer as a matter of fact was not one of those. It was Lindgren and Roth and the Emory Report that led to his being booted from Emory. The suggestion that Kozuskanich supported Bellesiles has no basis in fact. I agree that Bellesiles has no place in this article. Kozuskanich, by contrast, is a real scholar whose critique of Cramer shows pretty conclusively that the dominant understanding of bear arms had to do with military usage. Also, nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive-- that is a gun rights mis-representation of the collective and civic rights models. Everyone accepts that this is the usage of the Pennsylvania Minority. The question is what weight do you give to the minority of a single state, particularly when its formulation was not used by any other state, writer, or the Congress that actually wrote the Amendment!Conlawgeek (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:you "military usage" claims.The Supreme Court has looked at the issue and determined that the Collective rights viewpoint is full of soft brown stuff.

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

RE:Your claim that nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive, you are either ignorant or also full of soft brown stuff. The collective rights view of the second amendment is that it only protects the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a government created and regulated militia. See current cite #38

Williams, David H. (2003). The mythic meanings of the Second Amendment: taming political violence in a constitutional republic. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 0-300-09562-7. The amendment thus guarantees a right to arms only within the context of a militia, not an individual right to arms for self-defense or hunting68.160.162.23 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I think we are straying from a rigorous intellectual examination of the evidence. The fact that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view, does not mean that it is historically true, merely that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view. It does, however, mean that this is the legal meaning of the amendment until the people adopt a new amendment or we get a different court. (Frankly I don't think that a different court would mess much with Heller-- it would be counter productive and only energize the most radical wing of the gun rights movement.) We need to understand the difference between law and history. Also, if you look closely at the scholarship you will find that nobody in either the civic or collective rights camp ever said that everyone in America in 1788 believed that the amendment was only about the militia. The argument was always about what was the dominant view. Everyone who argued against the individual rights view always noted that one could find evidence such as the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority to support an individual right. As I noted above the issue is how do you weight such a text either as a matter of law or history?Philo-Centinel (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

it was not just the "right wing"(sic) of the court that adopted the individual right view. Anastrophe (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Stevens rejected the traditional collective rights view, his view was really the same as the limited individual rights view of Konig and Merkel, and Cornell's civic conception. The right belongs to individuals but is defined by the purpose stated in the preamblePhilo-Centinel (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

kennedy is generally not considered to be in the "right wing"(sic) of the court either. he is frequently a swing vote or wildcard. my point in mentioning stevens and kennedy is that these proclamations of partisan leaning aren't helpful, unless it's to demonise one set of justices and implicitly aggrandize the others. it adds nothing of value to the discourse, besides perhaps identifying the editor's leanings (which has been sadly easily identified in the frequent use of terms such as "gun rights trolls"). please stick to addressing the issues under discussion, rather than forcing partisan claims on them.Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This touches on a core problem here. The term "individual rights" is fuzzy. It means different things to different people. On one extreme it has become an ideological 'slogan' with more symbolic meaning than encyclopedic meaning. Therefore the terms needs special treatment in the article, and the insertion of the word 'individual' over and over and over (38 times at last count), is a reflection of the ideological systemic bias problem here. And, if nothing else, is a shoddy un-encyclopedic style of writing due to vagary of the meaning of the term. We should be able to say the same thing without such heavy usage of an term that does double duty as an ideological slogan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reference to "individual right(s)" in the article. It's used all of the time regarding rights, not just regarding the Second Amendment. However, it is used in slightly different ways regarding the Second Amendment. So each time it's used in the article, the context in which that term is being used so be made clear in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"individual rights" is actually not a fuzzy term at all. it is only considered fuzzy by those who broadly accept it for all amendments other than the second amendment, and wish to quash it for the latter. it's easily demonstrated: name a collective right, without referencing the second amendment or RKBA. collective or group rights are a bogus concept. yes, i'm merely expressing my opinion here. just as SB was asserting his opinion about the term.

to the (ten thousandth) claim of systemic bias, as i pointed out before, your raw count of the number of times the term appears is a pure red-herring. how many times does the word "person" appear? how about "right"? how about "arms/armed,disarm"? what about the word "law"? this is not a rational or valid argument concerning the content of the article unless you address the context of its use. taking words out of context is almost universally considered bad practice; it applies here too. if you have a legitimate claim in reference to the word "individual", then please provide each usage in context in a clear list. then other editors can see whether you're perhaps reflecting a systemic bias of a different flavor in making this argument. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the work of either Richard Primus or Jack Rakove you would realize that the concept of collective or corporate rights was an uncontroversial concept in Anglo-American law. The most obvious example of a collective right would be the right of the people to legislate. Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights talks about this right which obviously refers to the people in their collective capacity.Philo-Centinel (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Militia Act of 1792

Regarding how extensive gun ownership was in the early day of the US, I would have to say it was pretty well universal. This is in response to the Bellesiles claim that gun ownership was rare. Not only was it not rare, gun ownership was REQUIRED of all able bodied males.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As if laws requiring people to do something is proof that they actually did something. Please stop cluttering this article talk page with your original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Citing law is not original research. Citing law which already has a wiki entry is also not original research. Stop cluttering up this talk page with insane objections.68.160.162.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Split the article

Trying to reach a consensus for this article is futile. How about we split the article? One part of the article would only contain arguments which editors like SaltyBoatr and Conlawgeek would find acceptable. Another part would only contain arguments which Yaf and the anon would find acceptable. While each part would be one-sided, the article as a whole would be balanced. This is better than the never ending screaming match we have now. SMP0328. (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not consistent with WP:POVFORK. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing converting this article into two articles. SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Won't work. Yaf also keeps deleting my additions. See recent removal of well cited "right to revolt" material as original research when wiki already has much the same material in the wiki article on that right. I also don't think much of him adding quotes from the president of the Brady Foundation. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What, I don't get no respect? Yaf (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

People who try to win an argument by silencing opposing viewpoints don't deserve respect.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences

I removed the following material from the Early Commentary subsection of the Background section:

This passage has been used to support both an self-defensive and militia based interpretation of the Amendment. Indeed, Story was quoted by the majority opinion and the Dissent in Heller.

Those sentences lack sourcing. If sourcing is found for them, and there are no other reasons for exclusion, they can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)