Talk:District of Columbia v. Heller/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Or", or "in addition to" ?

In the introduction it is claimed "It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias." Did the decision rule that the RTKBA is no longer a collective right? Or did it rule that the RTKBA includes both collective and individual components? I am questioning if the bolded "or" might be more accurately "in addition to". What do reliable sources say about this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed in great detail early on in this article's existence. For a glimpse of the ideas discussed, please refer to Second such case with Slate reference. The US Sup Ct never determined that the 2nd secures a collective right, only the lower courts have. The Heller decision is the first US Sup Ct case to determine the 2nd amendment's scope. — Neutralman1024 13:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read the discussion of this question back from Jun28-Jun30, and that discussion does not identify reliable sourcing but is a hashing of personal opinion. In a sentence, you argued that Miller was not a collective rights ruling, therefore Heller means "or"??? This is incoherent original research. So, I ask again, someone please provide reliable sourcing for the second sentence of the opening paragraph which appears to suffer from WP:OR and POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason I ask this question is that I see that the SCOTUS goes on at length how Heller does not contradict the prior rulings, Miller, Presser, Cruikshank, etc.; and I think the reliable sourcing consensus is that there was a 'collective right' status prior to Heller. Therefore I am questioning whether the status now is described a 'individual right' status instead of a 'collective right' status. Was the 'collective right' status added to with an 'individual right' status? Or replaced, as this article says? Personal speculation aside, what does the reliable sourcing say about this? And, the second sentence of the intro should be based on reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you bother to read the actual decision in Miller, you'll realize that there is no determination of any kind about what type of right the second amendment secured. There is no personal opinion in that discussion. Read the sources cited. You'll realize there are a plethora of "reliable sources" for you to sink your teeth into. The lower courts used Miller to interpret a 'collective right' theory, but there is no US Sup Ct decision establishing such a right. If you actually read that prior discussion, you'd know what the "reliable sourcing" says. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That sentence of the article is not supposed to mean that only an individual right was declared instead of a collective right; it is supposed to mean that this was the first case to directly address any question of whether there is only a collective right or only an individual right (a seemingly untenable proposition) or both together or whatever. The other cases - Miller, Presser, and Cruikshank - are, compared to Heller, peripheral to the Second Amendment. —Centrx→talk • 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations for this exist within the body of the article, and are not necessary in the lead. --tc2011 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

remain to be constitutional

I feel this line in the Decision section is wrong and misleading.

• that longstanding legislative prohibitions, regulations and banning of firearms have been and remain to be constitutional;[33]

This poorly paraphrased statement is about the limited scope of the case not about the constitutionality of other laws and to imply otherwise is misleading. 130.20.229.174 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I have reverted this section to an accurate version. —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Centrx. The article is starting to get a little long and needs some fat trimmed off. The "impact" section is also not very clear on what the outcome of the case was in DC. The rest of that section seems to be sorted by state so maybe we should have a DC section there and consolidate that information. HFM also added a long paragraph that does not seem to fit in this impact section which I will remove unless someone can defend its usefulness here.

Then there are these two paragraphs:

However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

and

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in a non-binding section of the opinion, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[33] This type of commentary, known as dicta, is not binding on other courts because it is not necessary for the holding of the case, since none of those issues were before the Court in this case.

I suggest we take one of them out since they are covering the same material. The later better explains the limited scope of the case so I would recommend leaving that one. 130.20.229.174 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly commentary

Clark Neily, an attorney for Dick Heller in this case, Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, are not scholars and thus their comments are not "scholarly commentary".

This section appears to primarily consist of sour grapes in which editors attempt to denigrate the decision under the guise of worthwhile commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.120.255.250 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"02:33, 29 April 2009 Anastrophe (Reverted good faith edits by 68.49.11.48; The proper solution is the retitle the section, which will be my next edit.undo)" - It's only "proper" if the material has a reason to be there in the first place. The material removed does not. Yes, lots of anti-gun pundits are upset over the decision. No, including sour grapes by the disenchanted and unhappy over a final unappealable decision by the Supreme Court does not belong in an article on the decision itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.11.48 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

your personal opinion is noted. there's no obligation for the commentary section to be only scholarly commentary, nor any policy either. yes, anti-gun pundits are upset over the decision. that's not a valid rationale for scrubbing their commentary from the article. is the material reliably sourced? it would appear so. you seem to be upset over inclusion of commentary that isn't in support of the decision. again, your personal opinion is noted, but it's not a valid rationale for editing a neutral encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinion is exactly what the included material consists of. In an encyclopedia-quality entry it is *certainly* a valid rationale for scrubbing it, reliably source or otherwise. I am upset over your cavalier inclusion of what consists of little more than whining, in two cases by judges who are *required* to follow this opinion, not by any impression I have of the opinion's "wonderfulness". The opinion is what it is. This is an article on the opinion, not how people feel about. The word "neutral" means "without bias", the exact opposite of the material included.

Do you have any objection if I add two more personal opinions reliably sourced? Five more? Twenty more?

That's your logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.11.48 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

very highly recommend you (re-)read WP:NPOV. you are mistaken about what NPOV means. it doesn't mean that we exclude biased opinions, it means that such biases must fairly represent what reliable sources show to be prevalent or notable opinions on the matter. NPOV does not mean that we eliminate one or another point of view based on personal whims. POV's are indeed to be included, not excluded. NPOV means we cannot give greater weight to some opinions over others, except as found in the balance of reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is you who are mistaken about what NPOV means. It does not mean that on a decided matter, in this case a final decision by the highest court which only be overruled by itself, every Tom, Dick, and Harry who likes or doesn't like it should have her or his opinion in the article. Were this a controverted matter you'd have a point.

Take a look at some of the other articles on court decisions. You seem to be under the impression that this is an article about modern art, or cheeseburgers, or some other topic where taste and opinion vary widely.

This is a settled final Supreme Court case from which there is no appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.11.48 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with 68.49.11.48. The relevant issue is "stare decisis"

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

In particular the comments by Richard Posner, J Harview Wilkinson III, both of whom are lower court judges and bound in law to follow the majority decision, and Jeffrey M Shaman a law professor are nothing more than attempts to reargue positions rendered legally moot by the Supreme Court. Whatever purpose this section served prior to the actual decision, it is without purpose now. The pre-decision arguments are all summarized in Section 4. This entire section should be deleted. Wimania —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

These comments by Posner and Wilkinson are not from their decisions. They are not bound to follow precedent in their non-Court writings, published in The New Republic and the Virginia Law Review. —Centrx→talk • 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That does not make them "scholarly".

Unless you can demonstrate that these comments are "scholarly" - providing additional insights into the decision, or applications of the decision to existing laws, or tracing the decision into its historical roots and antecedents, and not just tired rehashes of arguments already made during the case and rejected by the Supreme Court, I'm afraid there is no reason for them to appear her.

Wimania (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Those are valid comments by renowned legal scholars. Such comments appear in almost any article on important decisions in Wikipedia, so why not here? This doesn't make any sense. --bender235 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm visiting this discussion after viewing an invitation at the Supreme Court Cases page. Just my 2 cents, as a law student: I always welcome the informed viewpoints of learned lawyers on law articles, regardless of their employment status (litigator, judge, professor, etc.) or their potential bias (disagree with the outcome/have a horse in the race/etc.). It's just the nature of the law that the most informed and intelligent commentators will often come down in favor of one side or the other. I would further add that there are hardly more impeccable sources than federal judges, and that Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson III are the best of the bunch. Obviously Clark Neily has a horse in the race, but once again, as the man who argued the case before the Supreme Court and won, he's going to have some worthwhile opinions on its substance.
• Now, I'm not going to get involved in the question of which header to put these commentators under ("scholarly commentary?" "commentary?" "reactions?"), but I can tell you that it would be a grave mistake to purge these voices from the article entirely Agradman (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether those "voices" should be kept or purged, I would like to point out that too much energy has been expended into trying to assert whether or not Posner, Wilkinson et al are "scholars" or not. The problem is the desire to have a header called "Scholarly commentary". If it were just "Commentary" or "Reception" or "Impact", there would be more leeway to include the opinions of those who are notable but not necessarily "scholars" within somebody's narrow definition of the term. As for a Supreme Court decision being "final", I think that is overstating the case. There are efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. This whole issue of "judicial restraint" is about arguing the tendency of some judges to be overly "activist". All law is open to review and reinterpretation and this includes Supreme Court decisions. It's a lot harder to reverse Supreme Court decisions but it is possible via Constitutional Amendment (cf. Dred Scott) or by the Supreme Court itself (cf. Plessy vs. Ferguson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) --Richard (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008)

The '290' page number here is incorrect. The 07-290 number is the D.C. docket No. for the case. To-date Heller has not been assigned a page number, in volume 554, U.S. Reports, where the case will begin. It should be cited as: 554 U.S. ___ (2008). (Truwik (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Nordyke v. King

Any help on fleshing out Nordyke v. King - which incorporated Heller's rationale to the 9th Circuit would be appreciated. - Davodd (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of Robert A. Levy

Is Robert A. Levy a Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute? The article text is insufficiently clear on the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.87.108 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP entry on Robert A. Levy. Naaman Brown (talk)

Deleted commentary

Copied from User talk:Centrx

I am proposing to partially undo your edit on this article.

You have reinserted comments from lower court judges under the heading "Scholarly Commentary".

Law professors are scholars, lower court judges are not, by definition.

Lower court judges are bound by the decision, there is no higher court than the Supreme Court, so their comments fall under the category of "sour grapes".

Wimania (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Posner is a law professor. Writings outside court opinions are not bound by precedent. There is no definition of scholar that prohibits lower court judges. There is no reason to categorically deny Richard Posner, a professor, prodigious author on intricate subjects, and an eminent intellect, as a scholar. There is no evidence that their writings are motivated by animosity. Even if we supposed that their writings were not scholarly, the main purpose of the heading "Scholarly Commentary" is to avoid the "Commentary" of random pundits and blowhards; it could be changed to "Legal Commentary". The reasons given for excluding these people, both of whom are authors and professors past and present, are utterly without merit. —Centrx→talk • 15:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Posner is *judge* for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is a *lecturer*, not a *law professor*, at University of Chicago Law School. He is a classical Second Amendment liberal who supported the collectivist view of the Second Amendment along with such luminaries as Alan Dershowitz. He lost.

He was sufficiently incensed at losing that he wrote what amounts to an opinion piece in the "New Republic", hardly a scholarly journal:

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d2f38db8-3c8a-477e-bd0a-5bd56de0e7c0

complaining about it. His personal opinion is interesting but it's not a scholarly opinion. The definition of "scholarly" in the OED precludes it. There are no scholarly citations, no references, no cites to prior law.

Yes, he has an opinion. If and when he become a Supreme Court Justice and the majority of that Court agrees with it, it will be worth reading.

"Evidence of animosity" is not required to preclude lower court judges' various personal opinions if the section is "Scholarly Opinion". However, his article cited above *is* evidence of animosity.

The various pre-decision positions are well laid out. The phrase "utterly without merit" simply indicates your personal bias. When you can construct a connectitude of facts strung together by some logical structure supporting a conclusion, it will become an argument.

Yes, many people were disturbed by the decision. No, that doesn't make it "Scholarly Commentary". The various attempts to reargue a moot case indicate some lack of understanding of the authority of the decision.

Posner's unhappiness over being overruled should be removed.

Wimania (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED definition of "learned" and "erudite" fit well with Posner generally. You seem to have no idea of my opinion on the underlying subject, and I do not know what Posner's opinion on the subject is. I have not read the article he wrote and I do not know why you think it is a problem. Simply, the purpose of the section is clear and Posner's status as a scholarly intellectual is clear. You need to explain what conflict there is between the section's purpose and the commentary deleted. Posner disagreeing with the court decision is no reason to exclude the commentary. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

End copy from User talk:Centrx

Copied from User talk:Centrx I have over 200 possible comments about the decision that fit the definitions of "learned" and "erudite" in relation to the Heller case. Most of the pundits, such as Alan Dershowitz, are of considerable more weight and stature than Posner, who is at best a minor academic and a lower court judge. "Scholarly" carries with it a connotation of worthiness, that reading it would add to the scope or breadth of one's understanding. Examples include possible scope of the decision on laws across the nation, explication of a particular part of the decision and its basis in the court filings and case history, or glosses on a specific finding. Most of the 200 possible inclusions simply reargue the settled case. I don't *need* to explain why a minor academic's general disagreement doesn't rise to the level of "Scholarly Commentary" - you need to demonstrate it does if it is going to be included in an encyclopedia quality entry. Wimania (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) End copy from User talk:Centrx

Posner is a major legal figure, and you can add Dershowitz if you want. Sundry similar comments are not appropriate for an encyclopedia; only representative commentary belongs, and the section does need a holistic revision. As it stands, Posner's commentary is the most substantive commentary in that section: if the simple deletion of certain comments were the solution for the section, Posner's would be the last to be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But Posner's comments don't meet the criteria of being "learned" and "erudite". They are simply a rehash of arguments made prior to the decision and rejected by the Court, all of which are already well-documented in the article.

I don't really wish to know your opinion on the underlying subject; on the matter at hand - the value of these non-scholarly pundits wishing the Supreme Court had decided otherwise - it's irrelevant.

There is nothing in Posner's comments - or J. Harvie Wilkinson's or Jeffrey M. Shaman's - that is not contained in the sections describing the filings and postions taken prior to the decision. In this overheated article, which seems to be a lightning rod for both gun control advocates and civilian militia aficianados, none of them add an iota to anyone's understanding of the case. Yes, their cherished opinions on the Second Amendment lie in ruins. No, that doesn't raise their unhappiness to the level of worthy scholarly commentary.

I'll date this up a couple of weeks. I'll check back then and if you come up with something more persuasive, on-point, and substantial I'll reconsider. "Substantial" that is, not your personal impressions. Try, for example, to show how Posner - in his "learned" and "erudite" manner - illustrates a *single* issue not brought up by those favoring the District of Columbia in this matter *prior* to the decision. Or how he brings new insights into the application of the decision to laws already on the books in California or Illinois.

If you cannot, you really don't have a point.

Wimania (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See my last comment beginning "Posner is a..." It is quite possible this entire section as it stands should be deleted, but Posner's last, and as Wikipedia articles can be works in progress, it may be appropriate to leave the section as is until it is reformed. —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your last comment. It's off the mark and off the topic.

Posner has nothing to add, nor does Wilkinson or Shaman. Their positions were well-represented in the filings and arguments prior to the decision, and they were rejected.

I'll date it up two weeks and if nothing *substantive* is presented, edit the section. No need to comment further unless you have something *substantive* to contribute.

Wimania (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is your edit to the section intended to be anything other than to delete the entire section? If not, you have not substantiated your edit. And deleting the entire section may be counter-productive. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That commentary section needs to neutrally present the full spectrum of reliable opinion. Lets call a spade a spade here, Wimania is proposing to delete just the commentary which are critical of the decision. How would that be neutral? It looks like a POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

POV deals with a controverted issue on which there are opposing points of view. Such were the issues on the Second Amendment *prior* to the Supreme Court decision on this case. That decision is the law of the land, the last and final tribunal, from which there is no appeal.

The opinions of Posner, Wilkinson, and Shaman simply restate arguments made in the lower courts and in the filings and arguments with the Supreme Court, and all those arguments have been rejected. And all those arguments are well represented in the balance of the article.

The commentary section does not need to exist at all. This is an article on a final decision of the Supreme Court on a controverted issue. So, indeed let's call a spade a spade. The fact that you, or Posner, or Wilkinson, or Shaman don't like the outcome is unfortunate, but it's hardly a substantive reason for a section for any of you to vent about it.

An argument can be made for scholarly comment about the possible implications of the decision on existing state or local laws, on insights into the Court's reasoning such as the scholarly research on the Second Amendment referred to in some of the filings, or in how it advances a particular view of the Constitution.

Posner, Wilkinson, and Shaman's comments don't rise to that level.

So, POV has no applicability in this section and the fact that you admit that you're pushing for "commentary which are critical of the decision" makes it clear you well understand that POV is exactly what you're advocating.

Wimania (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there are various POVs, and I advocate for a neutral and proportional representation of all the reliable ones. As to the assertion of 'law of the land', Wilkerson is critical that Heller leaves much of the detail of the law undecided, and points out that we need to wait years for the "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions...” loophole passage from Scalia to be litigated. At the present, until that litigation works it way through the courts, Heller is hardly the "final decision" to which you allude, not even close. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If "Heller" is not the final decision, who will make the final decision? It settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one, and not the National Guard or State militias.

Wilkerson's article in not a scholarly article in a scholarly journal.

I believe that Wimania's point is a valid one, and having scanned your numerous changes and comments in the article history and discussion prior to the decision, it would seem that the POV issue is yours, not his. All POVs were presented in the lower courts and before the Supreme Court, and those of Posner, Wilkinson, and Shaman were rejected.

He considers the decision settled - sorry your position wasn't vindicated - and doesn't believe rearguments of the issues raised *prior* to the decision under the guise of "scholarly comments" is appropriate. In short, on the issues considered and decided, there is only one POV - the Court's.

If the purpose is to created an encyclopedia entry, I concur.

If there are other cases wending their way through the courts, begin an entry on any ones you feel are significant and you can ensure that - prior to a decision - from the "various POVs" "a neutral and proportional representation of all the reliable ones" is included. This case, however, is concluded.

75.202.33.189 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this IPs comments. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• This does not explain why only certain commentary should be deleted, when Posner is scholarly and his commentary is the most substantive one included in that section.
• That the decision is settled by the Supreme Court is irrelevant to whether commentary about it should be included in the Wikipedia article. —Centrx→talk • 04:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that Posner's commentary pre-dates the Supreme Court decision and regardless it's status as scholarly beforehand is not scholarly now!

The issue being settles is wholly relevant when determining whether to include commentary that is strictly argumentative and demonstrating sour grapes versus commentary worthy of being published in a respectable law journal. —— Neutralman2¹⁰ 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else's statements here, and the contents of Posner's article, implies it was written after the Supreme Court decision. —Centrx→talk • 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the arguments he uses pre-date the decision — regardless of the fact he wrote his commentary after the decision — and are now moot. —— Neutralman2¹⁰ 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the arguments pre-date the decision, they belong in the article if they are not presented elsewhere, such as in the dissenting opinion. —Centrx→talk • 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, they don't. The arguments were already addressed before the Supreme Court and this decision takes them into account. Also, read Winmania's comment. Sorry to say it, but Winmania is right. —— Neutralman2¹⁰ 13:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean the defense put forth every important argument, and every one is described elsewhere in this article? The particular commentary currently included may be redundant, but that does not mean that a) all commentary is verboten, or b) the selective deletion in [1] is correct, which retains other redundant and less substantive commentary. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, I mean the post commentary relying on pre-Heller arguments against an Individual Right to keep and bear arms that 'no longer have any merit' in today's post-Heller society. This isn't about redundancy. This is about attempting to lend discredit to the decision through failed arguments pre-dating a Supreme Court decision. As I said before, I'm all for deleting the entire section as pointless in a post-Heller society. More to the point, this section is more appropriate in the 2d amendment article.— Neutralman2¹⁰ 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick read of the "POV problems, still unresolved, May 2009" section under

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

seems to support the conclusion that someone is unhappy with the outcome of "District of Columbia v Heller" and wishes to keep alive the impression that a "collective right" is a viable legal theory on par with an individual right.

This article isn't really the proper vehicle for making that argument. This article has been finally adjudicated and the decision is the decision is the decision.

The comments of Posner, Wilkinson, and Shaman are not scholarly commentary, they're expressions of unhappiness with the decision.

Wimania (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That the decision is settled by the Supreme Court is not only not irrelevant, it is the very reason that the post-decision comments of Posner et al carping at it should be excluded from an encyclopedia article. The fact that Posner and others had their favorite theories overruled means their further comments are editiorials, not scholarly commentary.

Posner may be "scholarly" in the sense that he teaches law (although scholars generally do more than teach), but that does not mean his every thought in every venue is "scholarly commentary".

None of the proposed deletions add a thing to the understanding of the decision. They are simply rehashes of rejected arguments rendered moot by the decision itself.

75.251.57.151 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a case textbook. You need to justify why commentary that disagrees with the decision should be excluded from an encyclopedia article. Should the dissenting opinion also be excluded? Should any legal theory be excluded from Wikipedia if it disputes a standing Supreme Court decision? If the Supreme Court overrules itself, should we delete all the commentary supporting the invalidated decision, and restore the deleted opposing commentary? —Centrx→talk • 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct - it is an encyclopedia article on actual fully litigated case, not an opinion piece. That's the reason why "commentary that disagrees with the decision" has no place in it.

The reason why the dissenting opinion is included is that it also is part of the Court's decision, recorded with it in the official record, available for public review, and therefore pertinent and relevant to a fact-based encyclopedia article.

Legal theories that were presented to lower courts and in filings and arguments before the Supreme Court are included and should be. They lay the groundwork for all that the Court considered.

Other legal theories can be found in articles on the Second Amendment and gun control elsewhere. This case is concluded and they don't belong here.

While stare decisis in the US is weaker than in some other legal systems, in general the Supreme Court does not overrule itself. If it should, reference to that future case might have a place in this article. It hasn't so it doesn't.

In summary, this fully argued and concluded case should not be reargued here under the subtrefuge of "commentary".

Wimania (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic commentary on a topic is appropriate for an encyclopedia and belongs in the article on that topic. Generic commentary on gun control belongs elsewhere. Pundit commentary inappropriate for an encyclopedia does not belong. Redundant commentary does not belong.

The problems with the proposed change are:

• Why should only some commentary be deleted, not all of them? (Especially when the Posner quote is the most substantive, non-punditary of all the comments.)
• Commentary in general is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, even if some or all of this specific commentary should be deleted.
• Redundant commentary needs to be verified as included elsewhere in the article.

—Centrx→talk • 23:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Academic commentary" is not a category of knowledge.

Certainly people who teach for a living have personal opinions, but their relevance to a landmark fully argued final decision of the Supreme Court in an encyclopedia article on the decision itself is nil.

Your suggested "problems with the proposed changes" simply recap your previously considered and discharged comments, all aimed at making this into an article which discusses the meaning of the Second Amendment and gun control rather than this specific case of DC v Heller.

I am not going to put additional time into responding to these "problems" - you already have been fully responded to on each.

Any post decision comments of a personal nature - even by academics - which take issue with this decision are redundant, immaterial, and inappropriate by definition. The comments of Posner, Wilkinson, and Shaman are not scholarly commentary, they're expressions of unhappiness with the decision.

There is no burden of proof to show that the issues they raise were not previously raised - the case is concluded and was fully argued and concluded *before* their comments. Since this is an article on this case and not on the Second Amendment in general or the unhappiness of collective right advocates about the decision, their comments are de facto irrelevant. If you have something substantive other than a general feeling that there should be a wide-open commentary section for people who were unhappy with the decision - of whatever class or group - please bring it to the table now.

I point you to

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

which indicates that the case as argued and decided should form the basis of this article, not this or that pundit's personal take on the desirability of the Court's conclusion, even be that pundit a professor, a judge, or other legal maven.

I assume that you already know this, since you cite it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Centrx#Useful_links

Wimania (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, the important opinions of historians and legal theorists belong in the encyclopedia. You have not addressed the problems with your change, or explained how they comport even with your own explanations on the discussion page. Also, please be more concise. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But not in this entry, which deals with a specific case which arose in the District of Columbia. A neutral point of view requires that the facts, including arguments, evidence adduced, and decision, including dissents be in this article. It would preclude various legal pundits who are discontented and wish things had been decided otherwise. The only "problem" seems to be that you made a bad edit, reinserted material that "Neutral point of view" precludes, and have now wasted two weeks trying to gussy that error ip with non sequiturs and miscellaneous falderol.

I will make my corrections to return this article to a form which comports with Wikipedia's established policies later this weekend unless you have something more substantive to add.

Wimania (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Substantial Revision:

Revised Section title to "Analysis" from "Scholarly commentary". The use of "Scholarly commentary" was a misnomer and led to the inclusion of a plethora of personal opinions violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy

Removed Laurence Tribe's pre-decision comments as non-factual material rendered moot by the decision itself.

Removed John C. Eastman's pre-decision comments as non-factual material on issues not considered by the court.

Removed Erwin Chemerinsky's pre-decision op-ed piece as non-party material redundant to arguments presented to and rejected by the Court. Removed Robert Levy's pre-decision comments. These could be included in the section "Background" if properly referenced to the actual pre-judgement arguments.

Removed Clark Neily's comments. The footnote does not cite an article in a journal or other published document.

Removed Richard Posner's post-decision comments. This article does little more than gainsay the Court with vain repetitions of arguments the Court specifically rejected, does not provide any insights into the possible impact of the decision or assist the reader in understanding the decision, and therefore violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.

Removed J. Harvie Wilkinson III's post-decision comments. They properly belong in an article on judicial activism or theories of judicical construction and only peripherally mention the case in this article, recapitulates Posner's (above) comments and therefore violate the same policy.

Removed Jeffrey M. Shaman's post-decision comments as simply a chastising of Justice Scalia's and belittlement of his constructionist viewpoint, therefore violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.

Added Ronald W. Staudt’s (Professor of Law and Associate Vice President for Law, Business and Technology at Chicago-Kent College of Law) comments on the impact of this Supreme Court decision on laws in the Chicago area, extracted from a fully footnoted scholarly analysis of “District of Columbia v. Heller”.

Additional citations to analyses like Professor Staudt's can provide breadth to the article and insights into the impact or potential impact of this landmark case on future jursiprudence.

Wimania (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct link to opinion from infobox

It seems to me that there should be a direct link to the opinion from the infobox, rather than requiring the reader to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to find it. Tisane (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, although the question would then be, which copy of the opinion? The only official one is the Supreme Court slip opinion, but those do not hang around forever. I like the way that LII arranges them, but I don't know how others feel about that site. I am sure everyone has their favorite. Someone earlier posted the link to the evendon.com web site, and labeled it "in Convenient Format", while I found the image-only pages (no text searching) to be decidedly inconvenient. — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Significant Issue / Misstatement / Missing Statement

There is rock solid sourcing that says that those things that this article says "The Court based its reasoning on the grounds....." are things that the court HELD. This huge ommision should be corrected. Here's the section that would fix it (from the 2A article):

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Claims of 'non-enforcement' by SF Housing Authority

"Tim Larsen speaking for the Housing Authority said that they never intended to enforce its 2005 housing lease gun ban against law-abiding gun owners and has never done so"

Sensible, law abiding citizens don't dare guess which laws will be enforced and which will be ignored by low level city bureaucrats when the outcome could be a stiff prison sentence. The deterrent effect of a housing authority's law is obvious and the claim is utterly unconvincing and would be laughable under other individual rights analysis. Perhaps something can be said to make this point clear so that no reader comes away with the impression that this is an acceptable defense? 72.64.214.106 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your disagreement with the thinking behind and implications of that statement. If there was a question of whether or not such should remain in the article, IMHO it should. it is germane, significant, interesting and sourced, despite our disagreemetn with it. You are basically saying that the statement is implying something improper (that it's OK to have a bad law on the books if they say they don't intend to enforce it) and have a concern that readers might be mislead to believe that, and that we should put something in there to balance that. From a WP standpoitn, if that point was made by someon in that case, you could put it in with the source. North8000 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruling

According to the Cornell School of law summary, and the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions, in this decision the Supreme Court held:

(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I plan to wait another week or so and then put this in. (?) North8000 (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Supreme Court opinion

There's a gaping hole in this article: nowhere does it say in the body, in Wikipedia's own words, what the Supreme Court actually held beyond half of the lead sentence. The subsection "Decision" is nothing more than a giant blockquote from the court's syllabus. It's a terrible violation of WP:SS. Perhaps someone can re-write it with a eye to what's actually notable from the perspective of our readership. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but quite a challenge. There's a big overlap between summarizaiotn and synthesis......the defacto definition is that if nobody disagrees it's summarization and if someone disagrees it's synthesis. :-) North8000 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but a blockquote is neither. And yes, it's a challenge, but no more so than for any other Supreme Court case. There are many that are much more complex than Heller. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Second para of lead

The second paragraph of the lead reads:

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

I removed this paragraph with the comment: "lead: court of appeals' opinion isn't sufficiently notable for WP:LEAD. Article is about SCOTUS, not CoA"

Gaijin42 put it back with the comment: "SCOTUS effectively ruled by denying cert. It is important to show the current limitations of Heller."

Gaijin42, I completely agree that there should be a paragraph in the lead about the specific holdings by the Supreme Court, but this isn't it. These are the holdings by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's opinion is the law of the land; the CoA's isn't. The Supreme Court neither denied cert nor rubber-stamped the CoA's opinion. If the Supreme Court "effectively ruled by denying cert" as you suggest then (1) please explain the basis for that and (2) the lead section -- as well as the body -- should explain this as well. As it is, we have an article about one court decision discussing the details about a different court decision in its lead section. Very weird. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I was sloppy in my reading and thought this was discussing the Heller followup case (AWB etc). I agree the article should focus on the SCOTUS case, but I do think that mentioning that this was the result of a CoA appeal. How about the following

"On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck [...] " This shows that it came after the CoA action, but that the ruling was ultimately from SCOTUS. the rest of the content is accurate, and notable enough to be summarized as to what was ruled in Heller? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if the language in that second para is a reflection of the holdings of the SCOTUS decision, rather than the D.C. Circuit. However all three refs are stale so it's difficult for me to verify. In any case this paragraph needs to be better sourced. We shouldn't be citing primary sources and blogs in the lead if we can avoid it. Anything that's notable enough for the lead of such a high-profile case should have been covered extensively by the press. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This articles Partiality is showing

Really, quoting paid think tanks and all the opinion sources that are first heavily weighted towards one side. Then the fights over what can and can't be contained in the article and about which entity it belongs (the answer incidentally is it belongs to itself, not a court level, I mean seriously), what does and does not constitute a scholar? WOW! Which Oxford contradicts the notions set forth here as well it can be either a specialist in a field of study or a distinguished academic.

But the absolute worse part of this article is that you can read the political maneuvering in the article... and not in a good way. It's uneven, disjointed, and conveys more politics than fact. It's really unreadable, even the political parts I agree with... IMO it needs a complete impartial overhaul. Joe Friday needs to be writing this thing. Despyria (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Vague insults really don't lead anywhere regarding review of or improvement of articles. If you think you have something, you might start with discussing it specifically and proposing a specific change. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Individual right in addition to a collective right or rather than a collective

Editing a different article that mentions Heller and it says, "[Heller] ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual (rather than collective) right..." (emphasis mine). Is that correct? Or did it rule that the Second was an individual right in addition to a collective right? How would others (you) word it? Opinion line starts here... Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

to my knowledge nobody has ever argued that the state be it the United States or the individual states do not have a right to bear arms....heck it's only been in the last 100 years that people have dared to and started to argue that point wrt to individual citizens.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You lost me, friend. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, lets assume that everyone agrees 100% its individual. What additional right would the collective right be? To have individuals keep and bear arms together? To march (cruikshank has an issue here, but also had an issue with the 1st amendment, so its dead at this point?), to actually organize a militia (Hutaree?) In what way is this new right not just the 1st and 2nd combined? (Assembly + arms). I don't think anyone is trying to say the right doesn't extend to militias/collectives, but it does so because every individual is covered, and every individual also has the right to assemble and associate. One of the classic pre-Heller analogies was "A well stocked library, being necessary to ensure education, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed". Does the right apply only to libraries, or only to individuals? Is not the former covered by the latter? "People" at this point is well understood to be "individuals", but in every application also applies to groups of people (freedom of speech could be saying something, could be joining a news corporation). So back to the root question, what is the actual "collective right" that isn't already covered by the individual right? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 - we edit conflicted. Here's my off the cuff response which aligns with yours I think.......I've opened a cheap bottle of wine so if I don't make sense - we can pick it up in the morning. Basically, the founding fathers abhorred standing armies. They were deathly afraid of them because they saw them as a path to subjugate the people so they wrote the second amendment. If we go look at the history of the revisions we can cobble together something that sounds like, "a well regulated militia, comprise of all able bodied citizens, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the individual people to keep and bear civilian and military arms shall not be infringed." This is evident that they meant military arms, because when Washington rang the bell, he expected able bodied adults to show up to the army -- armed for war. So what these guys envisioned was that the militia, when needed, would be drawn up from the people and that the people, of course needed to keep and bear arms to be able to provide for the militia. If we look at the powder rebellions -- they were all about a realization that the british were trying to limit the people (and the people's militia) from having ammunition. So this notion of the "collective" doesn't make much sense in terms of the constitution. The collective is made up of the individual citizens. It's a right that is vested squarely on the people because the people come together to form the collective militia. This was never a right to be granted to the "state". The founders feared the "state" they were creating. So if we're to argue these concepts, we have to do so in rational terms. When I hear this term "collective" being bandied about, it's really just code-speak for "the state". So let's sound it out "A militia being necessary to the security of the sates - the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"......why on earth would the founding fathers put in such a ridiculous sounding amendment? The people always means "the individual" people in all the other amendments, why would it mean anything else on the second???? So I stand, nobody has ever argued that the "state militia" does not have a right to keep and bear arms because the "state militia" is made up of the body of the people and they have to keep and bear arms for when they are called (and for self defense and for hunting in a wilderness frontier they were forming a republic in). If this doesn't make sense - I'll come back tomorrow. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To go all the way back to the collective=state right pov, which would have been that the Feds can't disarm the official state militias (which are now part of the Feds anyway via the National Guard) Im pretty sure that model is discarded by everyone now especially in light of Heller/McDonald, but probably even before that. Particularly in light of McDonald, that model makes no sense (The state's right to own guns cannot be infringed by the state) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that in modern times/debate, "collective" is shorthand for "only a militia right, not an individual right". North8000 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Collective" as a phrase is needed so that certain parties can rationalize their positions..."collective" = "the state"...because that is how we act "collectively"...but that makes the amendment sound ludicrous, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."????? This "collective" interpretation is particularly troublesome when it's found in the middle of the a "bill of rights" intended to restrict the "State" and "safeguard the people's rights." Everywhere in the constitution where a power is reserved to "the states", the founders are clear and when the right is reserved "to the people" they mean the individual - always. The collective interpretation does not stand close scrutiny. The founders roll in their graves but I digress. :-) -Justanonymous (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

amicus

In support of Heller: Academics Academics for the Second Amendment Alaska Outdoor Council American Center for Law and Justice American Civil Rights Union American Legislative Exchange Council Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al. Cato Institute and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm Center for Individual Freedom Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Congress of Racial Equality Criminologists Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund Former Justice Department officials Foundation for Free Expression Foundation for Moral Law GeorgiaCarry.org Goldwater Institute Grass Roots of South Carolina Gun Owners of America Heartland Institute Institute for Justice International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association International Scholars Jeanette Moll Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Joseph B. Scarnati, III, President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate Libertarian National Committee Liberty Legal Institute Major General John D. Altenburg, et al. Maricopa County (Ariz.) Attorney’s office Members of Congress and Vice-President Cheney Mountain States Legal Foundation National Rifle Association National Shooting Sports Foundation Paragon Foundation Pink Pistols Retired military officers Rutherford Institute Second Amendment Foundation Southeastern Legal Foundation State Firearms Associations Texas and other states Virginia1774.org Women state legislators and academics

In support of DC: American Academy of Pediatrics American Bar Association American Public Health Association, et al. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. City of Chicago Coalition of civil rights groups D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al. District Attorneys Former Department of Justice Officials Historians Major U.S. cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Members of Congress NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al. New York and other states Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler Professors of criminal justice Professors of linguistics Violence Policy Center and various police chiefs

[2] plenty too add J8079s (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

exclusively in the home

Did you look at the sources, Springee? I’d bet not. Exclusively in the home is the fact. Not the car, not the street, exclusively in the home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_of_Columbia_v._Heller&diff=896521693&oldid=896510857

soibangla (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I did look at the sources. They didn't support the text you proposed. There were a number of issues with your edit, not the least of which is that you restored it 3 times without starting a discussion here. North8000 was correct in reverting it. That should have been it since, per BRD, the change was rejected, thus you come here to sell it. As to why it's problematic, first, the earlier text directly follows the text of the decision section [[3]] and no additional citation are needed. As a general rule, if you have to add citation to the lead you are probably not summarizing the body of the article. Beyond that, none of the sources supported the version of the text you added. They appear to be good sources (not sure about the last one) but none support or even imply that the SC views the 2nd amendment to be limited to self defense in the home. Rather the court text and the articles make it clear that that is the minimum standard. It simply hasn't decided if the right to posses a gun in self defense would apply beyond just the home (on property outside of the home, at work, in the car etc). Springee (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::Your interpretation of Heller is false. It has been hijacked and distorted by the gun lobby just like they hijacked and distorted the 2A itself. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here. soibangla (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what the actual ruling says. Look it up in your sources or in the Wiki article. It does NOT say that the 2nd doesn't apply outside of the home. The document literally says, "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." Note "such as self-defense within the home". It does NOT say the right is limited to within the home. It doesn't say the right extends to other places either. Instead the court simply didn't answer the question as to the extent of where the 2nd A applies. Your text implied it was limited to in the home, rather than at least in the home. Springee (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Congrats

Excellent, well crafted article. Zezen (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

While it is an excellent, well-crafted article, there are two major points that are missing.... The first point is that, several years later, SCOTUS had to make a "ditto" ruling in McDonald v. Chicago because, as they pointed out in McDonald, Heller only covered the District of Columbia. Therefore, the Court essentially said "ditto" in McDonald so that Heller would cover the whole country, not just DC. The second point gives you some context on Scalia's loony tunes statements about guns after Heller and McDonald. You see, at the time, the Court was split up, 4 Conservative Justices, 4 Liberal Justices and the "Libertarian" of the panel, Justice Anthony Kennedy. If you're wondering why the Heller decision doesn't contain completely insane gun lunacy, Justice Kennedy is why. After oral arguments, Kennedy was ready to side with DC. But, the 4 Conservative Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas), promised to put less insane language in the decision to get Kennedy to side with them. As a matter of fact, Kennedy wrote part two of the decision. It was a compromise that the 4 Conservative justices correctly surmised that they'd need. Now that SCOTUS has 6 Authoritarian GOP Justices, they can take the gun case they heard in January, about concealed carry, and strike down part two of Heller, which would send this country into chaos because there'd be no restrictions whatsoever on gun rights. If you thought Alito's leaked draft of Hobbs is crazy, just wait until that gun case decision comes out later this month (June 2022) 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:6043:1BBB:6A1C:6287 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool story bro? Thanks for sharing your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.208 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

January 2019 historical and legal analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller decision reasoning by Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio

With this edit from January 12, 2020 a historical and legal analysis of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision reasoning by Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio and a relating opinion article was deleted. Part of the edit were the following the words: "If inclusion is still warranted the next step would be to take this content to article talk for discussion". Accordingly I start herewith the necessary discussion.

I recognize after my content addition from January 11, 2020 and the following multiple reverts (see this edit and the following ones) that my additions caused resistance. To prevent further deletions I propose limiting my previous editions by including the following content in the first two paragraphs of the "Post-ruling impacts" section :

There have been as of October 2018 more than 1,300 Second Amendment cases nationwide which challenged restrictive gun laws of various kinds since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heller. 93 percent of the case were were upheld in the lower courts. The courts have upheld most of the above mentioned laws as being constitutional.

I hope that by limiting the content to facts and figures in the proposed way a solutuion can be achieved which precludes (potential) bias and ensures neutrality. What do you think? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the first and easiest question is why is this content DUE? I suspect their have been many people who have opined on this subject. Why is the opinion of this attorney worth including here? Does he have a long history of scholarship related to similar cases? This is a case where you need to show WEIGHT for inclusion before the material was restored to the article. Springee (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the deleted content because of the historical connection between Slavery in the United States and the Second Amendment in the context of Justice Scalia's Constitution interpretation method originalism and the implications for his reasoning in Heller. Anthony Picadio is, according to the wepage lawyers.findlaw.com, a former Pennsylvania Assistant Attorney General, served as Editor-in-Chief for the University of Pittsburgh Law Review, and also served as an adjunct Professor of Law at Duquesne University School of Law. I don't wanna readd his historical and legal analysis of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision reasoning, but focus on another aspect Picadio noted in his analysis. Because of the professional background of Anthony Picadio and to provide facts and figures regarding the number of cases in the aftermath of Heller I would like to add the following content in the first two paragraphs of the "Post-ruling impacts" section:

There have been as of October 2018 more than 1,300 Second Amendment cases nationwide which challenged restrictive gun laws of various kinds since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heller. 93 percent of the case were were upheld in the lower courts accordint to adjunct Professor of Law at Duquesne University School of Law Anthony Picadio. The courts have upheld most of the above mentioned laws as being constitutional.

Can this limited and short content added to the District of Columbia v. Heller article?

The Heller decision had many findings related to rights. Some explicitly protected certain specific things (e.g. the particulars of the case at hand) others determined that it's protective provisions are for the individual not dependent on anything militia related etc. etc. It also left much undecided. What happens in the lower courts is that if it's in the undecided area regarding constitutionality, the law typically does not get voided and what really happens is simply that they let the conviction or penalty stand. The proposed wording (and possibly the proposed writer) makes all of these sound as if these were determinations of the constitutionality. That is problematic. Also, from the other material it appears that the Picado material is biased reflections/opinions. Another issue (and possible spin to the numbers) is that the Heller decision was in essence not made applicably nationally until the McDonald decision and so inclusion of pre-McDonald cases as a reflection on or relevant to the the Heller decision is problematic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the historical and legal analysis of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision reasoning by Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio and a relating opinion article. This content was replaced with 1.) content in the context of Post-Heller Litigation Summary and 2.) related sources to this content. The issue "January 2019 historical and legal analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller decision reasoning by Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio" is in my opinion therefore done. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that some content like this in there is useful. I'm not one to be overly strict on sources when the material sounds plausible / isn't controversial.....otherwise using an anti-2nd amendment website as a source would be an immediate no-go. Also the site seems intelligently written with the spin level kept not too high. I sure wish we could shore up sourcing that the number and characterization as 2A cases are confirmed by a better source. Included in that would be that the number is post-McDonald. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with N8000 here. I like the general idea of the content but Gifford's lobbying group shouldn't be used as a RS. Also, this is a case where the raw numbers may not mean much. It would be much better if we had a good source digesting what those numbers actually mean. Springee (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a source which provides (hopefully) some clarity with respect to the number and characterization as 2A cases for the cases mentioned in the Giffords Law Center sources. I am open for suggestions how to improve the content in the first two paragraphs of the "Post-ruling impacts" section after I added the the Giffords Law Center sources and the Congressional Research Service source, if this should be necessary. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References