Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

English Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for claim that English right was limited: \

Amendment II

Document 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Ratification Conventions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Ablative Absolute

I am referring to this sentence in the Wiki entry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Heller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mad Hatters out in force

Direct from the Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. v. Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Background

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

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

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

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

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

Anastrophe - consensus on lede

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

Truwik states the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acting outside of concensus and in violation of 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Heller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court also said - directly opposing your interpretation

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

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

To repeat

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

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

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

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

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

Try reading this again

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

Ward does not reference Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yaf: Which former U.S. Atty. Gen. expressed an opinion about Bliss that related to the 2A? Please quote what he said w/cite. 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 (which did not comment on, or reference to, the 2A) 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) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

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

U.S. v. Cruikshank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive use of Saul Cornell"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight given to tiny minority opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found three, (Cornell, Shalhope, Warnke) now you want more. OK, add to the list of scholars who describe this "civic right" model: David Konig, Richard Primus, Richard Uviller and William Merkel[1] for a total of seven. Still, you have identified zero sources for your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joyce funded Chicago Kent which defended the traditional collective rights view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. The issue is the proportion of representation in reliable sourcing. I have shown seven reliable sources giving coverage to this 'civic right' hypothesis. You have shown no sourcing what-so-ever, other than your original research and your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing dos not include paid propaganda. All Saul Cornell material falls under that heading.

Re: Your claim to have provident seven reliable sources "giving coverage" means jack. Sources giving coverage is not the same as plain old "sources"141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'civic right.' There is no such thing as a 'second amendment right.' The right to keep and bear arms existed before, during and after the 2A was ratified. After attaining a certain age, anyone born in the U.S. may acquire a firearm, without permission from any government agency. This was true before and after the federal government was created, and it was true after the federal government began to infringe on the right. With exceptions of the mentally ill and convicted felons, every American has had the right, from 1776 to the present, whether or not s/he was a member of any militia, to possess and use arms. That is a fact that has no neutral position. This 2A article is about federal infringement, which does have pro, con and indifferent positions - not the right. (Truwik (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Under the America system of government the people have certain inalienable rights and that in order to form some sort of working government they give power to that government to infringe on those rights is certain specified manners. There is absolutely no record of the people giving ANY level of government the right to deprive them of their inalienable right to self defense using a gun, a knife, a rock, their firsts, a baseball bat, or any other tool which they find to do the job.141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While your personal beliefs are important, they are not relevant to discussion of the article. Please move discussion of your personal beliefs elsewhere. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal belief has the support of Supreme Court ruling and plainly language within numerous state Constitutions. Please move you objections to my beliefs elsewhere.141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Conlawgeek

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

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

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

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

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

This type of conspiracy theory is why nobody outside of the loony world of gun rights takes this entry seriously. Since you can't argue the facts you fall back on this absurd charge of conspiracy. As has been pointed out in this discussion, a university like Ohio State could not take money to advocate a political point of view. Student law reviews do not cede editorial control (Chicago Kent is the exception to this rule) Anyone with a high school education who read Cornell's work would see that it attacks the traditional collective rights theory funded by Joyce as much as it attacks the individual rights view. The Levinson review of Cornell's book in Reviews in American History makes this point very clearly. The simple fact is that many of the scholars on the individual rights side of the debate have also taken money from conservative foundations-- including the NRA. I fear that this essay will never be anything but a gun rights echo. I am not going to devote any more energy to trying to keep this balanced. It never will be NPOV and only shows once again how the whole wiki idea is naive in the extreme. This entry is dominated by gun rights advocates who clearly will not brook any honest discussion of the facts and spend a scary amount of time on this site!

My simple effort to show how much more complex the English history of this right was resulted in a dogmatic ideological response. The fact that by the period after the American Revolution English Courts had expanded the right does not tell us how the right was understood a century before. The narrowing of affray after the Revolution does not tell us what it meant in 17th century England- -it does tell us that the crime continued to exist in modified form after the Revolution. Tucker's own comments that the English Declaration of rights provided almost no protection for the right to arms is simply cast aside by references from English cases no longer binding on America after the Revolution. The point is that Tucker did not believe the pre-existing right was very robust. The lapses in logic in these responses are truly shocking.

So long Conlawgeek (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am continually disturbed by the phrase "the traditional collective rights theory". Traditional implies the oldest and as any student of history can find out, the "individual rights view of the Second Amendment" is the "traditioal" view. The collective view is a johny come lately view that showed up 100 year after the Revolution and did not gain much popularity until the 20th Century. I consider this term nothing but a blatant attempt to rewrite history to support a discredited ( as of Heller) view of the Second Amendment and what it protects.141.154.15.141 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

issuing a string of ad hominems and slights while exiting the room is an age-old, and not particularly noble, technique. no mention of the 'loony world of gun control', so i guess we can infer your stance from that. one would expect that a self proclaimed 'conlawgeek' would be interested in actually contributing to the encyclopedia; with a grand total of four edits in wikipedia article space, all on only this article, it rather suggests a single purpose account, and certainly not a consitutional law geek. oh well. thanks for playing on wikipedia for a week then bailing with a 'you all suck' postscript. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Conlawgeek makes some excellent points about specific problems with the article. Most notably the problem with gun rights advocacy bringing a systemic bias into the article, "consensus" of a group of editors that tend to advocate one way in favor of their adversarial view of the world does not equal the policy: "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Instead the article represents point of view in proportion to the prominence of the advocacy of the editors attracted to edit this article. That is a systemic bias flaw of the Wikipedia model where it is exceedingly difficult for editors to separate their personal view from the view found in the balance of reliable sourcing. A systemic flaw that cannot be easily fixed. Next, I expect to be subject to personal attack by well known advocacy editors here. Oh well, this gets circular. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

there is as much evidence for system bias in favor of gun rights as there is evidence in favor of gun control. which is to say, none at all. the systemic bias claim lacks any objective metric; it is lacking in any probative value - it is merely one editor's opinion stated as fact. can you explain why editors who are strongly in favor of gun control would not also be similarly 'attracted' to this and other articles pertaining to guns, violence, crime, etc? are you suggesting that those in favor of gun control aren't as strongly invested in their viewpoint as those in favor of gun rights? why would that be? there are many very prominent gun control advocates - in fact, gun control advocates have long been given great emphasis and coverage in popular media, so it's hardly as if there are no people out there who care about gun control. what would be the explanation for this - stated in objectively identifiable metrics? hopefully i have avoided any personal attacks. if i may point out as well, i have made numerous edits and reversions on this and other articles in service of NPOV. i have supported addition of properly sourced 'gun control' content (it's a misnomer, but it'll do for purposes of this discussion), and have reverted blatantly POV additions or removals disparaging the 'gun control' POV. am i guilty of systemic bias? i would note also your recent addition to Right to keep and bear arms that was one-sided in favor of 'gun control' content, which is contrary to NPOV. (it has since been adjusted for more neutral content, i'll acknowledge). is this evidence of your 'systemic bias'?Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A strict interpretation of your request would result in the deletion of ALL collective rights arguments in the article except those appearing in case law. As of the Heller ruling, the collectivist view has been discredited and has no force in law and therefore zero persuasive power.

An alternate way of determining popularity by Google search of the terms "Second Amendment" and "individual right" as compared to "collective right" The "individual right" combo has over 90,000 hits while "collective right" combo has under 20,000 hits. In the current article, there are 31 instances of the words individual, individuals, and individually, while the words collective, collectively has 10 instances. By this measure the collective right interpretation is currently overrepresented and should be reduced.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Second+Amendment%22++%22individual+right%22&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Second+Amendment%22+%22collective+right%22&btnG=Search141.154.15.141 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

google searches are not admissible as a measure of 'popularity'. this has been covered countless times on wikipedia. there is simply no value at all to such hit counts. none. it's pointless to even mention them, since they have no probative value. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see one such discussion of Google searches on this page and I have been here almost a year. When and where was this issue covered and do wiki rules bar Google searches for checking popularity? Please cite the rule where this method is barred. Alternately show a rule discussion where this has been addressed by wiki administrators, not editors.141.154.15.141 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's review the facts. In Heller Scalia and Stevens each make arguments based on English history. Yet, every time somebody suggests that this essay ought to include both of those interpretations of the evidence, one side is reverted out of existence. Then to further intimidate debate we have a sock puppet investigation. Well I can't imagine why conlaw geek is bailing--Philo-Centinel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

You seem not to have read the Stevens dissent. Stevens states right at the front that the right is an individual right. Per his intro his dissent against the decision in not about whether it is a collective right or an individual right. His dissent is about the scope of the right.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that Stevens and Scalia don't agree on the English history. The fact that Stevens cast the right as a limited individual right is not on point. Things always drift away from the focus and are pulled back to the ideological debate over gun control. I suspect this is why we can never make any real progress. I fear this does tend to prove that a wiki is not a good way to deal with a controversial ideological issue such as this one. Sad really.Philo-Centinel (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't quite get the fact that disarming the population through game laws, the cite you and Conlawgeek wanted inserted, resulted in the king who practiced those policies to be run out of town for practicing tyrannical policies against the population. Are you an advocate of tyranny?141.154.15.141 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny I thought we were trying to write an article about the Second Amendment so that people could understand how the debate has evolved and how the Supreme Court divided 5 to 4 on its meaning. Obviously, this is not what some people are interested in doing- they wish to debate gun control and gun rightsPhilo-Centinel (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite sure that is NOT what you think. If you had thought that you would not have attempted to rewrite history. and you're wrong about what we wish. We don't wish to debate anything. We wish that SOME people who STOP act like domestic enemies of the US Constitution and leave us and our rights ALONE!141.154.15.141 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is actually some excellent work on why gun rights people are much more likely to dominate a forum like this and why most gun control people are likely to be off doing almost anything else. I suggest you all look at the work of Dan Kahan at Yale Law School on the cultural foundation for the modern gun control debate-- so to answer Anastrophe -- yes there is a fairly well established sociological consensus on this point. Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with that fact that quite a few of people have become disgusted with the way politicians are abusing the power and trust placed in their hands? 141.154.15.141 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another topical book discussing the selection bias of public interest in this topic, relative to propensity towards taking action, is the book "Disarmed" by Kristin Gross, 2006 Princeton University Press, ref ISBN 9780691124247 SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to find out that DC never had a ban on guns. Shocked I tell you! How could Heller have taken advantage of those old senile fools at the Supreme Court by bringing a case before them against laws that do not exist. SIMPLY SHOCKING! (This is sarcasm people)

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8328.html

Readers interested in social movements and social movement theory will find an interesting case study of a movement that never happened--efforts to strengthen gun control laws in the United States.

Meanwhile over on Amazon a reader sneering at the book comments that US gun control laws are patterned after NAZI laws of the 1930's. OOOPSS! Better not let THAT fact come to light. Brings back memories of the whole Fatherland/Homeland Patriot Act scam.

http://www.amazon.com/Disarmed-Movement-Princeton-American-Politics/dp/0691124248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1237783313&sr=1-1

The flaw, or Big Lie, is its unproven assertion that Gun Prohibition is a good thing; no proof in this book. The 1968 Gun Control Act was followed by increased rates of violent deaths (Figure 2.1, page 41). After it was passed the legal technician who wrote this law admitted that whole sections were taken from the 1930s Nazi Gun Control law. This Nazi law was followed by the worst political oppression and highest rates of violence in 20th century Europe. School shootings were unknown before the 1968 Gun Control Act but became a reality with the next generation. Localities with Gun Prohibition have the highest rates of violent death (Washington D.C.) while rural areas with widespread gun ownership have the lowest rates of crime. It all relates to economics and the absence of political oppression. The oppressed suffer from low wages, high taxes, and the poverty that causes crime and "senseless violence" (when somebody snaps). Areas with high gun ownership generally have more owner-operated businesses and a more egalitarian atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.15.141 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious issues in the "civilian usage meaning" section

The following appears in the current article under civilian usage

Likewise, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

[T]he 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

For some strange reason I find myself not convinced that bearing arms in defense of my State or of the United States is a non-military usage of arms. Call me crazy for thinking that shooting at a foreign invading army is a military usage of arms.141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While there are 'serious issues' within the states over the scope of the right, that doesn't affect the meaning of, or the purpose for, the Second Amendment. For instance, in Bliss and Buzzard two states had laws which prohibited 'concealed carry' but when those laws were challenged, Kentucky voided its law, as being violative of the right, while Arkansas held, its law did not violate the right. (Kentucky then altered its constitution to limit concealed carry.) Massachusetts had a law which mandated a one-year jail-term for mere possession of a handgun within the state, while Vermont had no restrictive gun laws at all. However, none of these state variations of the scope of the right, affected the purpose for the 2A. That is, no state has ever suggested updating the amendment's words 'keep and bear arms' to better reflect the latest changes within state law.

If there is a serious issue in this 2A article, it is over, to whom 'shall not be infringed' applies and what constitutes infringement. If one views the amendment as a 'right' he would then assume that everything affecting that right likewise affects the amendment's meaning. Yet 'shall not be infringed' seems to negate that. How can there be 50 different versions, of what the right consists, if the supreme law of the land mandates that the right shall not be infringed? This seeming dichotomy has a simple answer, which is hard for some to accept. The Second Amendment is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' that applies exclusively to the federal government. Those editors who favor evermore federal infringement, would probably never accede to that - even though it is a historical fact, which every U.S. Supreme Court decision, that has addressed it, has upheld. (Truwik (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that that is also a serious issue and if you will check the record you will find that I did attempt to change the intro to include the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits "infringement by Congress". However calling shooting at an invading army, a civilian usage of arms is totally ridiculous.141.154.15.141 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, calling defense of a state or country 'non-military' is silly. When states called up their militia for intrastate police duty, individuals arrived toting their own rifles. Most states required their men to equip themselves with a trusty rifle for such duty. (Truwik (talk) 15:39, 23 March 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[2]), 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[3] and page 124[4], 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[5] and [6]. 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)