Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Template:TrollWarning

Consensus Intro

Since the intro is now seemingly agreed upon, I've archived the discussion. Arthurrh (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought we were still discussing the exact wording. But, whatever. Have made two minor changes in the intro, changing two words "that --> whether" and "federal individual right" to "individual right". If this is an issue for anyone, lets discuss it. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no one had said anything for days, and SaltyBoatr had already changed it. We can restore the discussion if it's needed. I think the changes you made were good. Arthurrh (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't chimed in in several days, but I think the current status represents a pretty good compromise too. If I were to quibble with anything, it would be the word "misunderstood." It doesn't add much to "disputed" except to create the impression that the article should be read with the understanding that one of the major views of the 2A is wrong from the article's perspective. That's technically true (they can't all be right, so the non-right views must be based on misunderstanding), but it invites the reader to guess which viewpoint the article holds to be correct. The subsequent quotation from the ABA report suggests that Wikipedia is adopting the ABA's POV on the 2A. PubliusFL (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's why "misunderstood" wasn't in my original proposal. Arthurrh (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstood is a pretty important word there, for me at least. The source also says 'misinformed', and I would also favor including article coverage of the large USA societal disinformation "POV push" in the last three decades. FWIW, I am presently reading the Malcolm book, and see that the 'precedent' section seems to include original research vis a vis Malcolm. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see that it's only "disinformation," "misinformed," or "misunderstood" if you start from the perspective of assuming that a particular POV is right? The article shouldn't do that, therefore we should be very cautious in characterizing any of the major theories as "misunderstood," "misinformed," or based on "disinformation." PubliusFL (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See ref, quote: There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue." My opinion is not OR, but rather based on that sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the reference. My objection is based on NPOV, not NOR. You can find sources on all sides saying that the other side's arguments are dishonest and/or stupid, but NPOV prevents us from basing Wikipedia articles on such claims. The fact that side A says that side B uses "misinformation" and "misunderstands" the Constitution is based on side A's POV. The NPOV approach is to acknowledge and describe the dispute and disagreement, not to accept such characterizations. PubliusFL (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything about 'side A versus side B'. Are you questioning the quotation of the ABA, hosted on the guncite website as not neutral? Either or both sides might be misunderstanding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do challenge the neutrality of the ABA on the issue. The ABA has long opposed the individual right interpretation of the 2A, and openly lobbied for stricter federal gun control legislation. They are not an impartial referee here. PubliusFL (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the opening sentence of the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, Harvard University Press, 1994: "The right of the ordinary citizens to possess weapons is the most extraordinary, most controversial, and least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists." (emphasis added) The fact that the 2A is often misunderstood seems to meet WP:V. Do you have a problem with the neutrality of Prof. Malcolm? By my estimation, she weighs in at the far 'pro-gun' extreme of the POV neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am perplexed that the two issues in the following unsigned message seem to have been ignored in the now-archived discussion (Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)): The amendment only states that the people shall not have its right infringed, not the individual. Furthermore, the vast majority of legal precedent has interpreted the militia clause to be a qualifying clause, so that the second amendment is only applicable under such conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) [/i]

The first issue is not one I have heard before, but the second is of paramount importance and quite directly contradicts the wording of the first sentence of the current intro. I hold to this view, and thus am offended that only one view is presented in the intro, that view being that the amendment states two different things instead of stating one thing on condition of another, which it seems quite plainly to do. Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to share your personal opinion. And, so much of this article is devoted to promoting the various personal opinions. That tension is biased by pervasive Textualist and Originalist premises which permeates the article. Why ignore the traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation of private use and ownership of weapons? As Jack Rakove asks: "If the adopters had the same evidence available to them that we possess today, would they place greater weight on the speculative danger of tyranny, ... Or would they agree that pressing problems of the present warrants placing greater emphasis on the police power of the states?"[1] In other words, I think the article needs less textualism and more contextualism to hold a neutral balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The view of which part of the amendment supersedes the other is a POV. Currently, the lede is worded to take neither POV (whether the right to bear arms is protected from infringement and a militia is also a "good thing" that the right to bear arms supports, or whether there is a need for a militia, and, only for this purpose, probably collectively, only, the right to bear arms is protected against infringement.) It is not for us as editors to pick one POV over the other, but, instead, to present as balanced a lede (and article) as possible. As for the details contained in the article, because it is necessary for the article to contain reliable sources, more textualism is likely to be more appropriate, instead of placing an emphasis on contextualism that attempts to spinmeister towards any particular POV. Personally, I believe that the founding fathers focused on tyranny the most, having just thrown off the tyrannical King George and his minions, instead of focusing on any particular pressing problems that some perceive to exist in, say, 2008. I believe that the article needs solid reliable sources, with an emphasis on historical commentary, over any attempt to sway readers' opinions through appeals to contextualism appropriate for 2008. Yaf (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Rakove article[2], which takes patience (it is long and dense), but Jack Rakove makes a compelling argument as to why excess reliance on originalism and textualism does not fit with a policy of WP:V. Simply put, the use of snippet quotes from historical commentary has very often been exploited out of context to push a modern political agenda. This modern political agenda conveniently ignores the fact that the framers accepted as fundamental a traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation; which is at odds with the modern 'right of insurrection' hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With all that we still need to keep in mind that the goal of wikipedia is not to present the "correct" view of a contentious issue such as the 2A, but rather to present an unbiased article with inclusion of the various arguments. Attempts to say which method of interpreting the 2A are correct simply don't belong here other than inclusion as yet another POV in the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally get the WP:V "it is not about truth" concept and goal of Wikipedia. My point is that the Textualist and Originalist approach to the 2A is vastly over represented in the article. The Contextualist POV is much under represented. It is a question of finding the neutral balance point. Have you read the Rakove article? See for instance section 6.2, 6.2.1->6.2.4 'The gun rights debate'. That section is heavily skewed towards the originalist and textualist methodology, with severely imbalanced POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to the Introduction. The reference to U.S. Court of Appeals decisions is now a footnote (which now includes a Ninth Circuit decision which differs sharply with the other two decisions. None of these changes affects the substance of the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has reverted my above described edits. He claims that there should no changes to the Introduction of this article. Is he correct? If not, I should be permitted to make non-vandalizing edits. If he correct, then some sort of warning should be placed above the Introduction so people know not to edit it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold that changes to the intro must be by consensus, there has been far too many edit wars over this sensitive introduction to engage in changes there without working first on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does a detailed discussion of division between the circuit courts need to be included in the intro? That detail, if verifiable and neutral, belongs in the article down below if at all. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This proposed change[3] has major WP:POV problems because it fails to recognize that most of the circuit courts presently favor the collective interpretation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want, I will add more Court of Appeals decisions. The current Introduction does not cite any case that follows the "collective interpretation." If changes to the Introduction are only to occur via consensus on this Talk page, then a warning stating that should be added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the intro is the right place for a detailed accounting of the rulings of the various circuit courts. Regarding consensus, especially for sensitive articles prone to edit war like this one, please see here WP:CON. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the introduction reading "with the majority of circuit courts favor the collective interpretation" (however it may be worded). It's quite clear that this is no longer the case, as proven in more recent cases. Mønobi 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading that says this? WP:V sourcing says otherwise, like here[4] and I could provide many more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The earlier version said the following:

"Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia".

The current version does not claim which interpretation is supported by "Most" federal courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) (edit conflicted) United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer. Mønobi 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite sourcing about 'most' please? I cite here[[5]] that most meet WP:V standards. Your assertion appears unfounded. Also, pending resolution, I have added a NPOV tag to the article, it is a shame we must skip the step of working a consensus on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here [6], where it states "the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons...regardless of whether the person is then actually a member of the militia" Mønobi 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And your source also says (see bottom of page) that the fifth circuit stands alone, in other words, most circuit courts hold otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do federal courts not matter? Why not sum it up by stating "Circuit and federal courts are in disagreement over the interpretation regarding collective and individual rights...." etc. Reword it to make it sound better, and a la fixed! Mønobi 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay references in article

The references to gays in the article seems irrelevant to me. I have removed the references once, but they were restored. Instead of getting into an edit war, I am posting my feelings here. Just because a couple of websites refer to gays regarding the Second Amendment does not make gay rights relevant to an article about the Second Amendment. Gay rights and the Second Amendment are separate issues. The gay references in this article should be removed. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly disagree. Two reasons, 1) It is well sourced. 2) If the 2A is about the federal government not infringing the right of people in the states to belong to state militias (as most of us agree) then when the federal government prohibit a subset of the people (the gay) from participating in state militia upon federal call up is 100% relevant to an article about the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Most people believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not to join a state militia. The fact that something is "well sourced" does not make it relevant to an article. If I added a well sourced section about the NFL to this article, it still wouldn't belong in this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we all know that the 'individual right' is subject to debate and opinion is mixed. Still, I think that virtually all scholars agree that, at the least, the 2A prohibits the federal government from infringing state militias. In addition, there is the much debated question about an 'individual right' to firearms, but that is above and beyond the issue that the federal government is not allowed to infringe the state's militias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not affect these clauses that allow the Congress or the President. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, you prove my point. Funny that Congress called it the Dick Act. <grin> The fact remains that the issue of whether gays are constitutionally entitled to serve in the National Guard is 'on topic' and is well sourced. Did you read the U&M ref? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether gays can be prohibited from serving in a State militia, or U.S. Armed Forces for that matter, sounds more like an Equal Protection Clause issue. The Second Amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to be a member of any State militia or any of the U.S. Armed Forces. --SMP0328. (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2A does not guarantee membership in any State militia, even in the 'unorganized' militia? Many reliable sources disagree with you, yet you are entitled to your own opinion; but not to edit it into the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the U&M ref? SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which one of your footnotes is the U&M ref? --SMP0328. (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the 'gay' paragraph in the article right? The U&M footnote is the first of the three footnotes of the 'gay' paragraph. If you want to discuss this further, please read all three of those footnotes, then re-read WP:Policy, and come back to discuss the merits and relevancy if needed. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That article refers to the Second Amendment under the "collective right" reading of the Amendment. For now, I will leave your additions to the article in place. Whether they will stay in the article will depend on the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. If the Court rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then your additions will no longer be relevant to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you haven't read Uviller and Merkel because to summarize the U&M hypothesis into a phrase, "collective right" isn't accurate. It would be better described as "How the second amendment fell silent", or perhaps, "an individual right gone dormant". SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Challenge

A challenge has been made regarding this article's neutrality. Anyone who feels this article is biased or neutral should post in this thread. It would be better for this dispute to be resolved quickly. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag could be removed if we could use the prior consensus introduction. Your recent unilateral change is not neutral because it falsely attempts to suggest an 'even' split of the circuit courts. Please cite sources in your defense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The current wording only states there is disagreement; how does this imply an 'even' split? The current NPOV looks better than before the change. Yaf (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Mønobi 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to what most circuit courts say implies that the fact that more federal courts ruled one way makes that way the right way. That is a POV. An interpretation of the Constitution does not become correct merely because more courts have ruled that way as opposed to another way. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you read this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the version of the Introduction you want. That's the version that refers to what "More" courts have ruled. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Per good solid sourcing[7], most of the circuit courts favor a collective interpretation. The pro-gun POV wants this fact suppressed. The suppression of solid sourcing causes the NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This text is based on data taken from meetings held in 2001 and 2002, long before all the more recent cases listed in the present footnotes that have gone the other way. Current cited data should be favored over stale data. Yaf (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which data? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, there are multiple sources supporting both sides (see "pro-individual" source: [8] . It's best to leave the introduction by stating there is a disagreement over "collective" or "individual" rights, which can clearly be seen by the different sources provided here. Mønobi 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are talking of a different debate, popular opinion. The separate question at hand is the current status of court opinion. There is no doubt that "nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question."[9] A 9:2 ratio justifies the use of the word 'most'. To omit that word causes a NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)