Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mediator needed to prevent ongoing edit war (2nd Amend.quote)

There is only one source that can serve as the source for 2nd Amend.'s text -- the original source, transcribed from the original Bill of Rights document.

[[1]]

This issue has already been argued before (see above), and it should have been finally agreed that no other source but a link to the original BOR document can suffice. However, we're back to people wanting to replace the original with a version that serves their political interests; they don't like the fact that the original had a couple of commas they find inconvenient. Therefore, I request that a Wiki mediator be brought in, and hopefully lock the 2nd Amend.quote to any further editing (after reverting it back to the link at the Congressional archives). Otherwise, there's just going to be revert edit-wars on this issue until doomsday.J.R. Hercules 05:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with politics; have you read this article? the second amendment, as ratified by the states, did not contain the comma you are inserting. the second amendment, as currently defined in law in The Statutes at Large, does not contain the comma. The version in the archives is a copy; there are many copies, some have the comma, some don't. I have no opinion on what meaning the comma may have; i am reverting on the basis of what i describe above, principally as found in the statutes at large, which is how the amendment is currently presented. please bear in mind that your request to lock the quote is your own POV, that it is the only version acceptable. The section discussing commas in the second amendment should be your guide. Anastrophe 05:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider as an authoritative source an article penned here by people who have the ideological agenda to rationalize away the BoR's original punctuation. In the meantime, I'll point out that the link to the photograph of the Bill of Rights is not a "copy", but a photograph of the original document. Furthermore, your claim that the Government Printing Office's version is the "correct" version is a little strange considering that THIS link to the GPO's Bill of Rights contains the exact same punctuation as the original document (as it should).[2] J.R. Hercules 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

it is a photograph of *one of the many copies* of the document. it is not the original, or only copy. as the article points out, the version in the archives was rendered *after the BOR had been ratified by the states*. it seems clear you have not read the subsection of this article that discusses the commas. had you done so, you'd see that it describes the differences in punctuation even within the GPO's versions. again, it's worth bearing in mind that the version without the extra comma is what was ratified by the states; if that is not the 'official' version, what is?

you are claiming an ideological agenda by others; since you're laying down that gauntlet, then how about stating what your ideological agenda on this matter is. i have my beliefs as to how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted; however, i'm basing my edits upon the *historical record*, not my beliefs. Anastrophe 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You just won't give up, will you? The photograph of the BoR on the archive website is a photograph of THE original BoR. It is not a "copy". Nowhere on the National Archives site does it "point out" that it was some "version rendered *after the BOR had been ratified by the states*".

Oh? You mean "the article" *here*, the one on Wikipedia? That's what you're referring to? You're back to that again? Something written quite possibly by yourself -- or maybe by a high school kid from Russia -- becomes the authority. Open-edit Wikipedia articles are legitimate confirmation sources for other open-edit Wikipedia articles........?

I called the National Archives. They confirmed that the copy on display there -- the one on the National Archives site -- is the original BoR. The one that has John Adams' signature (did the scribe forge Adams' too?) That's why it's in the bullet-proof case. In the bomb-proof wing. Surrounded by cameras. And security guards.J.R. Hercules 21:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm really curious why you're so worked up about this. no, i didn't write any of the section on the commas. the only previous edit i've made to the article was to replace "protects" with "codifies" in the first paragraph. heck, you're welcome to look at the history of the article, rather than just slinging reckless accusations as you are currently. suggesting that there is one, and only one copy of the bill of rights is rather naive. this was back in the 1700's for crying out loud. they didn't draft the bill of rights, then fax it to each of the states. here's an article from the north carolina archives about their copy: [3] so, still maintain that there's one, and only one copy? Anastrophe 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

followup to my own response. here's an excerpt from the above noted article: "It was one of fourteen original copies of the proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution - collectively known as the Bill of Rights - prepared by three federal clerks in 1789. A copy was scrivened for the governor of each state to peruse as the adoptions of the twelve amendments to the Constitution was debated; the other copy was for the federal government.". what is at issue now, is whether the thirteen original copies that went to the states differ from the 'master' copy held at the national archives. i have not yet been able to find a high resolution copy of the NC copy, or any others for that matter, but i'll keep looking. if the contention in the WP article that the thirteen other copies differ from the one at the national archives turns out to be false, then i will be delighted to remove the whole section about the comma myself. let me repeat: i have no agenda in this matter besides accuracy. Anastrophe 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

another interesting bit of history - regarding delaware's copy of the BOR, which is currently held in maryland, and which was signed directly by delaware's leaders. [4]. this is getting very interesting! Anastrophe 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

more: [5] - delaware's copy - bears the 'extra' comma. Anastrophe 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

since this is already rather drawn out, i'll try to keep this my last post in the thread. this site: [6] has a wealth of information on the amendments as proposed by the various states. the second (better simply referred to as 'right to bear arms', as it's in different positions in different state's lists - virginia has it at nineteen!), varied considerably in text from state to state (again, talking about the proposed amendments, not in terms of the final draft). new hampshire's was quite succinct, befitting the 'live free or die' state: "Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.". the presence, or absence, of a comma in the final version that was ratified strikes me as a minor issue. the intent of the different states varied, and the final wording - for better or worse - remains ambiguous (or we wouldn't be having this dispute). however, it seems fair and reasonable that the copy in the national archives, which every citizen may see for him or herself, can reasonably be considered the canonical version. on that basis, i'm removing the 'dispute' tag, removing the enumeration of the different versions at the top, but leaving the section further into the article regarding commas in place, until visual evidence supporting or invalidating it can be secured. either way, it needs to be sourced. Anastrophe 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The second amendment is by no means ambiguous. It makes a statement in plain English that any English professor that is intellectually honest could tell you what it means. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a statement of purpose and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is how the purpose will be achieved. The first part does not limit the second.

It becomes ambiguous at the hands of people that want to change the meaning of it since they don't like what it says. With or without the comments, it means the same thing, so why worry about them?Jimberg98 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

back again, oh well! it's worth noting that the article does specifically reference [7] an image of the printed version that was ratified by the senate, which does not contain the extra comma (and which also has "People" capitalized, unlike the one at the archives) Anastrophe 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reediting the quote section. I read the above links you provided above with some interest.J.R. Hercules 04:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this issue has come up again. Another way to handle it would be the version that was used up until October 30th - that "dual mention" worked for awhile, I don't know why it was removed. - O^O

i actually think that the 'ultimate' way to do this would be - for all of the articles pertaining to the original bill of rights - that an image of the actual text, as it appears in the document on public display at the national archives, should be provided along the top of the article, with a textual version, mirroring it, provided beneath. that there are variations on the punctuation isn't in dispute; however, as i think i mentioned above, the copy of the BoR that any citizen of this country may view for themselves, which is publicly displayed, is for all intents and purposes the 'official' version, regardless of differences in various reproductions. is that POV? hard to say. if we yield to the notion that there is a canonical or authoritative version that exists, i think that that is it. since the article specifically points to the discussion about the commas further in, that seems an adequate way of keeping that issue fully and publicly addressed. Anastrophe 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe - I was just logging off, but did one more refresh and caught your comment. I'm glad the debate here isn't about whether the commas matter (which is a whole other can of worms) but just over whether they are there or not. Since, as you say, there isn't a dispute that the punctuation is debated, I think the most NPOV way of handling it is to go back to stating the debate. If we did indeed have to select a canonical version, I think I would have to go with what the Congress voted on, not what the scribe wrote down later. Its funny that so much effort goes into this - they played fast and loose with punctuation back then, but we take it so seriously today. - O^O

militia purpose

Why does the first sentence say "...codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms."? To me, a better expression would be "...codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia.". Isn't the purpose of the arms for use in a militia? The word 'milita' appears to have a significant importance to the meaning of the Second Amendment and should be mentioned. Of course, I might be uninformed, so I am simply asking the reason why the word militia was left out. Bruce Hallman 08:14, 02 February 2006 (PST)

The question is not: "does the second amendment give me a right to own guns" but "can the second amendment take those rights away"!. The distinction is important. Let me digress:

In the complete absense of a government, people would naturaly defend themselves from attack. Self defense is the exercise of your right to exist. You have a right to prevent someone from killing or hurting you. But what about firearms? Ok, Imagine you are a caveman. How do you prepare for an attack? do you gather pebles? do you pick a tiny stick? no, you pick the biggest damn log that you can comfortably pick up and swing. Not only do you have a right to defend yourself, but because you are not the agressor, you are not the one that tried to deny someone their right to exist, you have a right to defend yourself with supperior force!

Guns exist. you cannot wish firearms away. They are now part of the human experience. In a world with guns, the biggest stick you can pick up is a firearm. Now, about the second amendment:

As should be obvious by the foregoing, the right to own a weapon PRE-DATES the constitution. It was your right LONG before the constitution was written. The constitution cannot GIVE you any rights, it can only TAKE THEM AWAY! So the question is does the second ammendment take away your right to own a gun? No. The word militia is only there because the founders thought that having a militia was another good reason for having guns. But as the 10th amendment indicates, any right not mentioned in the constitution remains a right of the people. Unless the Constitution explicitly says "Americans give up their right to own guns", you have a right to keep and bear arms.

So that is why the word Militia is not mentioned in the explanation, because the second ammendment is about guaranteeing that you will always have the right to own a weapon, not that you can form a militia. I hope I made my point.

Dullfig 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To mention the militia in the introductory one-sentence summary would amount to taking sides in the debate. The unambiguous, uncontroversial purpose of the Amendment is to guarantee "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" — the nature and extent of that right (is it restricted to persons liable for, or actively engaged in, militia service?), and the purpose of Congress in specially enshrining it, which are not universally agreed on, do not belong in the first sentence. —Tamfang 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself :-) -- Dullfig 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Afterthought — adding the "militia" phrase could work against the anti-gun side. "The Second Amendment condifies the right to bear arms within a well-regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was considered too obvious to mention, and is protected by the Ninth Amendment." Heh. —Tamfang 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reaffirm my ignorance, and it is a shame that taking sides is so real here. The purpose to bear arms is quite clear and important in the Second Amendment, and the importance of purpose was central to and affirmed by the Miller case, right?

More, the US has subsequently defined 'milita' quite clearly in Title #10 section 311, which excludes people that are under 17, over 45, female, and not able-bodied. I don't see how the Second Amendment applies for uses outside of militia. If, per the Supreme Court, sawed off shot guns have no use in a milita, why doesn't the same logic apply to the gun rights of people not eligible to serve in a milita?

The founding fathers found it quite important to mention the purpose (in the one sentence long) Second Amendment. To exclude the purpose, (in our one sentence long) summary sentence appears to accomplish not much more than appeasement to those people taking sides, and I argue, changes the meaning written by the founding fathers from guns for a militia purpose, to guns for unlimited purpose. Bruce Hallman 12:47, 09 February 2006 (PST)

And I might argue that your proposed language changes the meaning of the 2A from defending a private right to creating a collective right.

You may hold that there is no right to keep and bear arms outside the militia, but in that case the militia restriction is inherent in the phrase the right to keep and bear arms! (Kinda like how my license to drive a car does not authorize me to drive a stolen car, though that restriction is not explicitly stated.) The introductory sentence as it now stands is sufficient: whatever right the citizen has to keep and bear arms, broad or narrow, the Second Amendment codifies it (incorporates it into the written law). This is consistent with all the theories. Your proposed version is not.

My own rationalization understanding is this: the preamble reminds us that standing armies are a threat to liberty, and it's better to rely on a popular levy ad hoc; and for this purpose (not excluding other purposes) it is necessary that the people at large be familiar with arms and skilled in their use, which cannot happen unless the citizen is assured of the freedom to acquire that familiarity and skill – including grandma, who while not liable to militia service herself can still contribute to the effectiveness of the militia by teaching Junior to shoot rabbits (without waiting until he's 17, any more than you should wait until voting age to learn to read). This view is consistent with US v Miller to the extent that a theory can be teased out of that poorly-written ruling. (A minor point: US v Miller does not say that short shotguns have no militia use; it says that the courts are not aware of such a use, and without evidence on that point the District Court had insufficient grounds to dismiss the case. I might also note that neither court showed any sign of giving a damn that the defendant was not acting in a militia capacity.)

Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh (a law professor) argues that the presence of a preamble is less significant than you might think, citing from State constitutions of the same period many examples of rights clauses with preambles that we would not ordinarily read as restrictive. [8] For example, New Hampshire's constitution of 1784 said: "The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved." Would we infer that writings not directly concerned with politics, e.g. fiction and criticism of works of fiction, are not protected?

—Tamfang 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tamfang, I appreciate your thoughtful and extensive reply. Though, I don't understand why something as simple as the first half of the sentence needs such an extensive reply. Shouldn't a literal reading of the Second Amendment carry extra weight over your own non-literal inference and understanding?

By the way, your non-neutral point of view is plainly evident. Witness your Feb 8, 2006 comment below "Brady Campaign to Monopolize Gun Violence". Also, in your post above you wrote: "The unambiguous, uncontroversial purpose of the Amendment is to guarantee 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'." Why does your quotation of the Second Amendment truncate away the first half of the sentence, focusing only on the second half?

I can agree that you apparently find the first half the sentence ambiguous and controversial, but the Supreme Court, which should by definition reflect a neutral point of view, has ruled that the purpose of the Second Amendment matters. The word and purpose, 'militia' has been ruled to be relevant by a neutral and higher authority than you (and Mr. Volokh), even though you don't like it. Bruce Hallman 18:05, 09 February 2006 (PST)

You asked why the word militia was left out; I tried to tell you. You said something about US v Miller that I believe to be mistaken, and based part of your argument on it; I told you what I believe the Court really said on that point. You asked why "the same logic" doesn't apply to persons outside the militia; I tried to tell you. Now you "don't understand" why I went to so much trouble; but as to that I am content to leave you in the dark, and hope I may be forgiven for my sloth.

The existing version of the introduction is obviously consistent with the view that the 2A protects a broad individual right; I have argued that it is also consistent with the view that the 2A protects only a narrow collective right. If you disagree, please address my argument. Here's a summary of my argument, again: if there is no RKBA outside the militia, then the RKBA necessarily implies the militia and there is no need to mention the militia explicitly.

Your proposed language is consistent with the view that the 2A protects only a narrow collective right, but not consistent with the view that it protects a broad individual right. If you disagree, please say why.

If my foregoing two statements are both true, then the shorter language is more neutral than what you propose, and thus preferable. If you disagree, please say why.

If a literal reading is to "carry extra weight", why do you want to replace a phrase that is in the Constitution ("the r. of the p. to k.&b.a.") with one that is not ("the r. of the p. to k.&b.a. for militia")? What on earth does it mean, anyway? It looks like "the right of the people to follow orders if enlisted," which is Newspeak. Does it amount to anything other than prohibiting the government to disarm itself? Or do the people have a right to form militias independent of the state, and to K&BA for that purpose? If so, how do we distinguish such keeping and bearing from doing so for, say, private security?

The second half of the 2A says what the clause is intended to do. The first half gives one reason why, which is interesting and decisive in some difficult cases (as the Miller court argued, though on even-numbered days I may not agree that it's relevant to Jack Miller's case) — but not half as important as the operative part. Reading the preamble is like reading the legislative history to infer the intent of Congress where the wording of legislation is ambiguous. I never said it's entirely irrelevant, so feel free to stop hacking at that straw man; then maybe you'll have time to address my actual argument on the point that you raised.

If you want to persuade people that the 2A does not recognize a broad right to keep and bear arms, you're in the wrong place. Our purpose here is not so much to discover its true meaning as to describe the 2A in language consistent with all viewpoints insofar as that is possible. However, I have argued that the 2A itself, not ignoring the militia clause, is consistent with a broad individual right, and so is Miller. We can agree to disagree, but I obviously will not concede that your view is valid or "neutral" and mine is not. Don't wave the Supreme Court at me unless you can show how Miller is inconsistent with my view as stated above. (Note that I'm not saying mine is the only view consistent with Miller.) We can discuss Cruikshank too if you like, or how about Dred Scott?

Maybe the Supreme Court "should by definition reflect a neutral point of view," in a perfect world, but it would be foolish to suppose that it always does; good thing you didn't say that. (The decisive authority, I say, is the understanding of those who voted to ratify the clause, insofar as that can be ascertained.)

Yes, I have a definite opinion on gun rights. So? My remarks here do not purport to represent a consensus. If I expose my bias for all to see, at least you have a fair chance to correct for it (assuming I'm not really a pro-government extremist trying to make the individualist side look silly). Do you expect us to believe that you have no opinion?

—Tamfang 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamfang, for being patient with me. I am a little slow sometimes. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.

We agree that the summary sentence of the Wikipedia article should have a neutral point of view.

Or, at least, so we piously pretend to believe. ;) That's a start.

I believe it should try to summarize the entire second amendment. You believe it should summarize only the second half.

Wrong. I believe that the language as it now stands is a sufficient summary of the whole. There may be a place for militia in the summary, but your first proposed version is just plain inaccurate; your second (below) illegitimately elevates the subordinate clause to equal weight with the main clause; and I for one am not motivated to write one for you. (I didn't write the present summary either.)

A red traffic light forbids cars to move forward. Its purpose is to prevent collisions. Is the first sentence of this paragraph therefore inadequate?

I believe that the second amendment mentions 'militia' for some significant reason (purpose). You believe that the mention of 'militia' is not significant.

Having already discussed the militia aspect at some length (and been mocked for doing so), I don't know what to say to that — in mixed company.

I would like the word 'militia' mentioned. You do not. You believe that not mentioning the word 'militia' is a neutral point of view.

In the summary, yes. It is in the nature of a summary to omit something. (I would have no quarrel with a summary of the Bill of Rights that, for brevity, omits any mention of the Third and the first clause of the Seventh.) I do not contend that it would be "neutral" to omit discussion of the subordinate clause from the whole article. Is the second sentence of the page not good enough?

Doesn't 'neutral point of view' imply meeting in some common middle place? You seem to want the 'middle place' to be 100% on your side?

Suppose I grab you on the street and demand all your money. A neutral party comes along and offers to settle our dispute. Would it be fair to assign me half of your money?

I have argued that the brief summary as it now stands is adequate and neutral, and you have made no effort to refute my argument. Going once, going twice, I assume you concede.

I agree with your criticism that my initial suggestion could be viewed as not neutral. Perhaps there is other wording of the sentence, still including the word 'militia', which would be neutral and acceptable to you? Say, for instance, "...declares that militia are important and codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Or, could you suggest a wording of the summary sentence that uses the word 'milita' and doesn't entirely ignore the first half of the Second Amendment?

My version would go something like this: "The Second Amendment declares that a popular militia, rather than a standing army, is the best institutional defender of political liberty, and to that end commands that the people's right to keep and bear arms be honored." But that's longer than the Amendment itself.

I disagree with you that this is a black and white 'broad' versus 'narrow' question. The question I see is what meaning of purpose should be read into the 2A, and omitting the entire first half of the 2A from the summary sentence dodges that question, and is far from neutral.

Broad and narrow are relative terms, not absolutes. Are you not aware that there are schools of thought on the issue that can be so described? Or are you saying that the axis along which we need to seek neutrality is something else?

Very often, dodging the question is the most neutral thing to do. —Tamfang 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think the third paragraph of section #4.3.1, starting with the work 'Cruical...' is decidedly non-neutral. The crucial part of Miller is the sentence "It must be interpreted with that end in view." Bruce Hallman 17:50, 10 February 2006 (PST)

You seem to read that passage as saying that the phrase "in the absence of any evidence" expresses the core of the SC's theory on the 2A. It does not say that: it says that if you misunderstand that phrase (as you did above, in my opinion, confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence) you are likely to misunderstand the procedural nature and scope of the ruling.

Since the passage evidently is not as clear as it might be, I'll look into improving it. —Tamfang 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My turn to ask some loaded questions.

Do you agree that the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Do you contend that the Second Amendment contains the phrase "keep and bear arms in or for a militia"?

Is there, in your opinion, a right to keep and bear arms outside the militia?

• If yes, what's the big deal?
• If not, then is the militia restriction not inherent in the right itself, and is mention of it not therefore redundant in a brief summary?

—Tamfang 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

>My turn to ask some loaded questions.

>Do you agree that the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Actually, your omission of the first part which includes the purpose, or an ellipsis, is a significant distortion IMO. I would agree with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The purpose matters, and I don't buy that the intended purpose was unlimited.

Did I ever say it was? You can stop bashing that straw man any time now.

>Do you contend that the Second Amendment contains the phrase "keep and bear arms in or for a militia"?

It doesn't say that exactly. And, I would agree that the 2A is somewhat ambiguous. I do believe that the Second Amendment was written with a purpose, and that reading the 2A is the first place to look for understanding that purpose. The phrase "keep and bear arms in or for a militia" accurately describes the purpose that I understand upon reading the 2A.

And yet the Court took no notice of the undisputed fact that Miller and Layton were not acting "in or for a militia".

>Is there, in your opinion, a right to keep and bear arms outside the militia?

Yes, but, I am not convinced that the 2A was written with the intention of protecting a broader version of that right beyond a well regulated militia. A broader version of the right might be (probably is) protected in common law, and other ways, but that is off-topic for a discussion of the 2A.

>* If yes, what's the big deal?

IMO, the 2A does not protect the right to keep arms, beyond keeping arms for use in a well regulated militia, or the right to bear arms outside a well regulated militia, and saying otherwise is a stretch and incorrect. To be correct, look for that right elsewhere. The 'big deal' is that people who advocate for a broad gun rights appear to me to be improperly co-opting the 2A.

The Second acknowledges that a right exists (Cruikshank). The Ninth forbids inferring from the Second that the broader right is not protected. Both are thus relevant to the broader claim.

>* If not, then is the militia restriction not inherent in the right itself, and is mention of it not therefore redundant in a brief summary?

Not mentioning the purpose written in the 2A is an implied expansion of the purpose to something it is not. 'brief summary'? The 2A is pretty brief in itself. IMO, quoting the 2A verbatim would be an improvement over omitting the first clause. The first clause contains the purpose, which I see plainly spelled out.

Then let's start over and discuss restructuing the article.

> Miller

I think I get the concept that there was not evidence presented to the Supreme Court to determine that the sawed off shotgun had a purpose (or not) for use in a militia. But didn't the Supreme Court write that: "It must be interpreted with that end [militia use] in view." 'Must' is a strong word.

The relevant phrase is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces", which is much broader than "militia use". (Tsk.) As I argued above and you have not disputed, a broad right serves that "obvious purpose" by encouraging self-training; clearly the "obvious purpose" is not served by self-training in weaponry not suited to militia use, and therefore the Court asked for evidence that a short shotgun is so suited.

> ...a popular militia...

Doesn't US Title 10 limit the militia to be subject to the command of the President? Does your word 'popular' imply that you believe that militia can legally, [per federal law], operate outside federal regulation and the military chain of command? To my eye, federal law prohibits that.

Bruce Hallman 11:30, 11 February 2006 (PST)

By "popular" I meant only that the militia is drawn directly from the people at large, rather than from the much smaller class of professional soldiers. —Tamfang 23:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

interpretation

Since I see editors arguing over how to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, allow me to remind everyone that it is not our job, as Wikipedia editors, to do so. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We should simply report what notable scholars and commentators have written. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The standard model is a modern invention. The notion that Buzzard was the only case supporting the militia view is not supported by the sources. What about Aymette? If an individual right had always been part of state constitutions why the big change in language in some Jacksonian constitutions? I suggest everyone look at the review of the Harcourt volume in U of C Law Review -- (comment added by User:24.145.225.26)

Aymette was an 1840 case where the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that it was legal for Tennessee to legislate the method of bearing arms, which in this case was regarding the concealed weapon carry of an "Arkansas toothpick" or a Bowie knife. Reference: [9] As this was but a State Supreme Court, it has no bearing on the US Supreme court rulings regarding Standard model versus Collective model. The Standard Model was still the dominant view at this time in the US Supreme Court. Yaf 21:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reminder, and that is why I am asking here about my idea that the neutrality of the summary sentence could be improved by some recognition of the purpose of the Second Amendment mentioned in the first clause. Wording like:

"...declares that militia are important and codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

...would be more neutral than not mentioning militia at all. I think that Tamfang disagrees, though I believe he didn't object explicitly that my latest proposal is not neutral. I did cite a reliable source, the Supreme Court, in the Miller case, said that the militia purpose matters. I accept as valid his criticism that my first proposal was not neutral. BruceHallman 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Better, but the two clauses need a logical link such as "to that end". Also, "declares ... important" is flabby; the reader may be puzzled at why a mere finding of fact is in the Constitution. —Tamfang 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Such as: ""...states that militia are necessary and codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms to that end." ? —BruceHallman 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "and to that end codifies", and "states...necessary" is almost as weak as "declares...important", but it's getting better. "affirms the necessity of popularly-based defense"? no, that's merely more words .... —Tamfang 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Or this: ""...holds that militia are necessary and to that end codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The verb hold comes from the "holds these truths to be self evident..." and the adjective necessary comes directly out of the 2A. BruceHallman 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "to ensure the effectiveness of civilian forces, codifies"? —Tamfang 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'militia' is definitely more neutral than 'civilian forces', at least from my perspective. Not to mention that 'militia' comes directly from the 2A, and 'civilian forces' is an interpretation. I see 'militia' as being under a federal chain of command, based on Title 10. The use of 'civilian forces' could include groups like the Minute Men Civil Defense Corps, who do not qualify as a militia per Title 10, because they are rougue. Actually, I had considered wording in the past tense, (and abandoned the idea due to likely being non-neutral), because the militia of the late 1700's is archaic, without a modern example that relys on private arms, besides the National Guard who do not. BruceHallman 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Past tense is okay with me, but because it's archaic I'd like to make explicit what militia meant. It certainly does not mean the National Guard if Federalist 46 is any guide. —Tamfang 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Our quarrel is precisely over which expression is most "neutral", and I can't see how to answer that question without interpretation, since the primary sources are ambiguous. —Tamfang 23:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You can always include them both. -Will Beback 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We're debating whether/how to add a phrase to the first sentence of the article. Bruce, how do you feel about having both a short and a long version? I think it would look odd. —Tamfang 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think and hope that we can find a mututally acceptable improved neutral point of view introductory sentence. Like this?

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, held that militia were necessary and to that end codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

BruceHallman 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

militia is singular and the phrase is still ridiculously vague. I wish we hadn't driven everyone else away from the discussion! ;) —Tamfang 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Have been following this discussion for several days, now. NPOV is most desireable, but difficult to obtain on this in a short, one-sentence overview. That said, how about the following:

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of the militia."

I tend to agree with Tamfang, that the militia was likely mentioned only as a parenthetical "good" reason for the RKBA, but was not meant to stand as the sole reason. Yaf 22:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with Tamfang? Tamfang wrote earlier that he/she favored the 'to that end' phrase, and while you wrote militia in the singular, he/she did not. Your belief of "not...the sole reason", which I respect, is not literally what the 2A says and is not in conformance with settled law since 1939. So, I don't see how it can be justified as a neutral position. Though, your position is consistent with the side of people who advocate for RKBA. My concern is that, although a broad personal RKBA is valid, it is not explicitly protected by the 2A, and co-opting the 2A to defend the RKBA is not neutral. Therefore eliminating 'I believe' and 'I understand' assumptions helps with neutrality and a straightforward literal conservative summary is better, like:

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, held that militias were necessary and to that end codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

BruceHallman 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I still favor "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of the militia." Now, as to your proposal of Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, held that militias were necessary and to that end codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms."; this, I feel, is not correct, for the RKBA of the people is not predicated on the existence of the milita. Your choice of "...and to that end codified..." implies that the right is reduced to a code of laws predicated on the existence of the militia. If the militia is ever abolished, or becomes a total anachronism, through legal manipulations in the courts or whatever, then, under your wording, the RKBA disappears. It does not. Instead, the RKBA is separate from, and distinct from, the existence of the militia. This is because the RKBA is instead established by the Ninth Amendment. The ninth, as I am sure you know, states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Under English Common Law dating back to Blackstone, the people have had a RKBA. The Ninth Amendment retains this right for the people. The Second Amendment then adds that this pre-existing right may not be infringed, and the reason listed why it may not be infringed is that "a well regulated Militia" is deemed good because it is "necessary to the security of a free State", as stated in the Second Amendment. Hence, I still support the following wording: "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of the militia." Yaf 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruce: As to the mystery of my gender, a hint: Tamfang is Elvish for copper beard. (Not conclusive, as my ex-wife can attest.) I'm the one who said militia is singular. I disagree that the law is "settled ... since 1939," since the Miller case never reached a conclusion (the Supreme Court said start over, but Miller was dead). I would also distinguish between what the authors and ratifiers of the Second Amendment understood it to mean and what the Supreme Court (the same political appointees who erased the Tenth Amendment by holding that growing corn for your own consumption is "interstate commerce") said it means. The Supreme Court is generally not held to have been infallibly correct in Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson or Lochner, for example, why should it be so in Miller? (Even if its ruling in Miller resolved the case, which it didn't; it said "start over" but Miller was dead.) —Tamfang 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf: I see no contradiction between the propositions that the RKBA is broader than the militia purpose and that the authors of the 2A were motivated by a militia purpose (which it would be dishonest to conceal) in specially protecting it; see my earlier argument about the Ninth Amendment. There's nothing very unusual about a law whose application is somewhat broader than its immediate purpose. Thus I suggested and to that end because it gives away much less to the "it's for the National Guard" party than Bruce's original RKBA for militia language. And I still think "the militia is important" is both limp and uninformative, but if you and Bruce are both happy with that language I guess you can have it; I have nothing to offer that isn't longer and more contentious. —Tamfang 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf suggested: "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of the militia."

I favor: "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, held that militias were necessary and to that end codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

I argue that the order of the 2A, where the militia clause is followed by the RKBA clause carrys meaning, (meaning: 'and to that end'). That is why my suggested sentence is more neutral. Yaf's sentence moves the 'militia' clause to a more incidental position, as if an after thought, and thereby introduces bias.

BruceHallman 19:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, I agree in principle with your point. Then how about considering the following, instead:

"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of this right towards supporting a well-trained and well-equipped population of civilians in maintaining the security of a free State." This leaves open (somewhat) whether the right exists for individuals (which I believe it does, but by the Ninth Amendment, not by the Second Amendment) or whether it exists only for groups of individuals, which by its intentional vagueness is probably a more NPOV way of stating it for an introductory sentence intended for an overview.

The NPOV issue seems largely to revolve around the translation of what has become archaic word definitions that have changed somewhat in their common usage (well regulated, Militia, infringed) since the time of the original writing. As for the National Guard issue, this is not an issue, as it was not what was described at the time of the crafting of the wording of the 2A. A select Militia was the expression that would have been used at the time for describing such Governmental bodies, and the fact that it was not chosen means that this was not the precise type of Militia that the importance of this amendment was intended to address. A well regulated Militia on the other hand is a group of well-trained and well-equipped civilians.

Anyone have problems with using this revised introduction sentence to replace the existing one that is in the Wikipedia Article? Yaf 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, I have a problem because the 'citizens' you describe are not necessarily part of the command structure of the military as required by Title 10 which is the present official definition of militia. That is the rub; where people that want to use the 2A to defend gun use for self-protection, hunting and recreational uses go wrong in my opinion. Not that people do not have the right to use guns those ways, it is just that the 2A does not give them those rights. The 2A had the purpose of making sure that the citizenry kept and bore arms for use in a militia, a militia which is archaic today. U.S. v. Miller said that the use of a gun in a militia must be considered. Miller is the latest word from the Supreme Court on this, no need to call it settled, it is just the latest. Any sort of wording consistent with Miller would be neutral in my opinion. Perhaps there is some sort of ambiguity that we can agree upon that can be read both ways? I am looking for some wording that includes 'militia' and that describes 'purpose'. The 2A has both, and the summary sentence should have both. BruceHallman 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you are confusing the militia with the Militia. Title 10 is only one definition of Militia/militia; namely, the militia. There is still the pre-existing constitutional Militia of the 2A, consisting of all 18 to 45 year old males whether citizens or not, as well as the now-extended 1958-revised Title 10 defined militia consisting of those males who are at least 17 up to 45 year olds without prior military service, extending up to under 64 year olds with prior military service, and additionally including women who are officers in the National Guard. The Militia is not strictly under the control of the military; the militia ostensibly is. I disagree with your statement that the Militia and/or militia is archaic today. It is still the ultimate re-set button to reboot the Governmental system of the republic, should that ever become necessary. (I sincerely hope it never does.) U.S. v. Miller said that the militia usage of weapons mattered on the infringement issue regarding the permitted choice of arms; it did not say that actual service in a militia for either a particular gun or any particular individual was a pre-requisite necessary to establish permission of ownership of guns in general. The reason, I believe, is that the Ninth Amendment already guarantees private ownership of guns, in principle.

See "15 Founding Fathers quoted by both sides" for my explanation as to why the 2nd amendment exists. I'd like to point out that there are three military entities mentioned in the Constitution. The Army and Navy are mentioned in terms that they must be created by Congress. The Militia is referred to as "The Militia" and it implies that it pre-exists the Constitution. "The Militia" is, in essence, the equivalent of saying "the People that are able bodied and able to fight". Jimberg98 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, how about the following, "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states the importance of this right towards supporting a well regulated (that is, a well-trained and well-equipped) Militia in maintaining the security of a free State." I am about to think only the original 2A will serve, ambiguities and all, for an opening sentence. Would you agree with just using it? :-) Yaf 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf; Please cite the source(s) of your distinction between "Militia/militia". I do not see it in Miller. I do not see it in Title 10. When I said the militia is archaic, I meant that the 'unorganized militia', the "bring your own gun militia", described in Title 10 is archaic.

Your 'ultimate re-set button' analogy appears just wrong to me. Such would amount to rebellion, and the President could enlist the militia to fight against a rebellion. How could that be, the militia fighting the Militia? I am not convinced that the Militia/militia exists outside the command structure of the military, now or in 1789, please cite your references. By your logic, correct me if I am wrong, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1789 would have been a Militia protected by the 2A? BruceHallman 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, the militia clause is a subordinate clause. If it is to be promoted to equal grammatical status with the main clause, a balancing demotion in sequence is appropriate. — The legislative definition of militia is, to a first approximation, all young male citizens; I don't see anything about command structure in that definition, or in Miller. (I'm not convinced that the legislative definition of militia, written after the 2A, is relevant; could Congress change the meaning of the First Amendment by an act redefining religion and speech and press?) — That the 2A does not protect the right to keep and bear military weapons for all lawful purposes is, of course, a contested opinion and you won't persuade anyone by pretending that it's neutral. — Miller says that to be protected a gun must be suitable for use in a militia; I trust that your omission of some such word was a mere slip of the fingers. — Is it your view that a right of the citizen can lapse through neglect by the state? Because that's implied by calling the militia "archaic". —Tamfang 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf — oh dear, don't tell me you're another capital letters fetishist (like those who make a big deal over citizen vs Citizen). The use of capital letters in the Constitution was a matter of formal style, not significant. If you want to distinguish between the select and unorganized militia, please use whole words. —Tamfang 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not me! I was simply trying to capture the difference in the capitalization of the 2A Militia vs. the lower case militia of the 1958 re-defining by the Federal Government. If something is written differently, it usually means that a difference must exist. Select and unorganized militia is exactly the same concept, though, as you point out, and is exactly the same difference that I intended with choice of militia and Militia I used in the above. Re-defining something in Federal lexicon does not destroy the original 2A's intent. Yaf 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yaf; just my opinion, but I don't think that making a distinction between "Militia" and "militia" will be fruitful. Capitalization was not used consistently at the time of the writing of the constitution. I think if there is a distinction between different forms of militias that needs to be made, those different forms should be explicitly described in each reference. Just my 2c - O^O

Greetings to the current round of editors. By way of introduction, I'm a long time contributor to this article, but one who only edits sporadically. I see that there is debate ongoing over that troublesome opening sentence. I'd like to give my 2 cents here, but of course everybody's opinions are important.

The difficulty here (as I see it), is that the whole issue of what the second amendment means is debated. That makes it difficult to state in a single sentence what the second amendment is without either violating NPOV, or immediately opening up the whole debate can of worms. Personally, I think the version I just posted "prohibits the infringement of the right of the people..." is about as much as can be said without taking a POV. We can't call the first thirteen words a "preamble", because that isn't what they are, and that implicitly says they aren't binding. We can't state whether the second clause is dependent or not on the first, as that is also debated. It gets really messy fast.

If possible, I'd suggest trying to keep this format:

• Bare minimum description of the 2nd.
• Actual text of the 2nd (both comma version)
• Factual description of the congressional drafting process
• Framing of the modern dispute
• Description of the modern dispute (including only the most crucial court cases)
• Historical evidence for/against the modern dispute

Deeper discussion of the modern dispute has traditionally been pushed off to the gun politcs article. We've tried to keep this article focused on the 2nd itself, and not let it turn into a gun control/gun rights debate. Unfortunately, this effort hasn't been perfect.

I find it helps me to imagine I was a fluent english speaker who had no conception of what the second amendment is. How should the article best be presented to educate such a reader? - O^O

Unfortunately, we appear to have fixated on the first bullet (no pun intended) of

• Bare minimum description of the 2nd.

as that was where we were attempting to find a neutral opening statement. Yaf 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And, I should add, I can live with the current statement that strips out the "codifies" and uses "prohibits infringement...". Yaf 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, O^O, I see your edit as from a non-Neutral_point_of_view. Your edit was not made by Consensus. Also, would you please cite your Reliable_sources, they are not apparent.

From the beginning, I have asked that the purpose of the Second Amendment be included in the introductory sentence. The purpose can be read directly, militia are necessary. Also, the Supreme Court qualifies as a reliable source and the "obvious purpose" was effectiveness of the Militia [[10]]. I am trying to do my part reaching a consensus about this, perhaps you would consider undoing your edit until a consensus can be reached? BruceHallman 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings BruceHallman,

Remember, everyone is an editor. If you aren't happy with an edit I make, you are free to adjust it. It often isn't until two people begin conflicting over a specific section of text that it is exactly clear where the disagreement is. Consensus is a process, not a moment in time. Consensus generally doesn't mean that all edits are hammered out in talk before being transferred to the article.

Your "reliable sources" comment confuses me. Without digressing into it very much, I'll simply point out that my edit primarily reformatted and removed information that was was already in the article. I suppose that if I added something, you would be in your place to ask that I cite it, but since I didn't add anything of substance I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'll take the time to reread all of your posts here to see if I can more completely understand your position. You, of course, are free to edit the article. But I ask that you consider that there is disagreement over whether the second clause depends on the first, and that therefore any statement discussing the dependency of the right on the milita should be couched as summarizing opinions, not fact. -O^O

O^O, I encourage you to (re)read the Wikipedia Policies_and_guidelines, that is what I am trying to use to guide my own actions regarding editing of the introductory sentence. Your mention of fact confuses me, because the standard at Wikipedia is Verifiability, not fact.

If I can try to restate my point: The Second Amendment, literally read: the first clause appears to describe the purpose. The introductory sentence of the Wikipedia article fails to mention this purpose, and this omission is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment is a protection of broad personal gun rights. I argue that this position is non-neutral because Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution give the Supreme Justice authority to interprete the Second Amendment. I have cited Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the Supreme Court, and Title 10. These two sources appear to have excellent authority. I contrast that with your edit which was made based on your personal opinion regarding broad personal gun rights, apparently from a biased point of view, with not much explaination. [By the way, I do not disagree that we have broad personal gun rights, but I disagree that the authority comes from the Second Amendment.]

BruceHallman 14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have attempted to craft a widely NPOV introduction, and have inserted same. This new version intentionally omits where the RKBA springs from. (Personally, I believe it stems from the Ninth Amendment, but that is not important for the opening sentence in an article on the 2A.) I have also intentionally omitted whether the introductory (and somewhat parenthetical) statement of the importance of the Militia is the sole reason for the ban on infringing the RKBA for the People, as this is controversial. (Personally, I believe it is but a single, albeit good reason, but not the sole reason.) I have also included a verifiable reference, for those who feel that this statement requires verifiability. With these changes, I believe that the needs for a NPOV introduction are now met. Any problems? Yaf 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, a tangent: stipulating that the RKBA is broad, would you object to a statement that – in light of the Ninth – the Second does support it? —Tamfang 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf: I probably wouldn't object to a mention of the Ninth Amendment.

Not my position. I would object to a mention of the Ninth Amendment in the introductory sentence, as it would be taken as evidence of bias. Yaf 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have a couple problems with edit and your citation of verifiable source. Quoting from your source here:

"After noting the need for a "well regulated militia" (a body of citizen soldiers called to serve during times of emergency or war), this amendment declares that the people's right " to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A key point in your source mentions that militia were 'the need', in other words they were a purpose, perhaps not the only purpose, but the only purpose mentioned. Why leave that out? Leaving it out is non-neutral, IMO.

My other is concern with the authority of the verifiable source. The Supreme Court trumps scholastic.com. Be honest, like it or not, the latest ruling from the Supreme Court used the words 'obvious purpose'. I argue that the 'obvious purpose' must be included regardless of the fact that people disagree with the Supreme Court. The same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote Article III, giving authority to the Supreme Justice to resolve ambiguity. You and I, and scholastic.com, do not have that authority to resolve ambiguity in the Second Amendment. BruceHallman 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To reach a conclusion sooner, why don't you edit the introductory sentence and see if other editors can live with it? Yaf 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did, adding the words 'to this end' which I believe is consistent with US v Miller '...obvious purpose...must...'. BruceHallman 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, perhaps a mention of the ninth would be OK, though in the introductory sentence? And, could you please point me to some verifible source of your idea, I would like to read more. The root of my concern is to include the purpose in the introductory sentence. BruceHallman 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean the Ninth should be mentioned in the introduction to the Second – that's why I said "a tangent": would you consider such a statement controversial if it appeared somewhere else? As for a source, well, there's Cruikshank. (I have become very tired of this debate and will now remove it from my watchlist) —Tamfang 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that we struggled fundamentally with the structure of the 2A in reaching our present introductory sentence. To that end, and to address the rationale for the seemingly odd structure of the 2A, I have added a quote from the Senate testimony (with a reference) of Prof. Volokh of UCLA Law School. I put this down in the Modern explanation section. If we do include a Ninth Amendment connection, I think it likely that it will belong in this section, too, but perhaps not. Yaf 18:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I don't think I have any hope keeping up with this volume of edits. I'll try to respond to what I can in the above before altering the article.

BruceHallman in particular, thank you for reminding me and all the editors about the Policies_and_guidelines. Although you didn't point out anything specific shortcoming in the present article, reading the early edit history of Policies_and_guidelines brought back some pleasant memories. You did question my use of the word "fact", and I'll admit that I used it casually. You can consider my reference to a "fact" to mean a properly worded [[[Verifiability|verifiable]] statement. For example:

• Not a "fact": The militia consists of (some definition).
• Fact: According to (some specific source), the militia consists of (some definition).

There was some discussion above on the true "source" of the RKBA. While that may be a topic of interest, it is not very germane to the opening sentence of an article about the second amendment itself. It is quite germane to a discussion on the RKBA, or on rights in general, but not immediately to the topic at hand.

Finally, briefly, I will point out that the Constitution itself does not explictly give the Supreme Court authority to "interpret" the Constitution. This power was claimed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. -O^O

Notes on my 03:55, 16 February 2006 edits: I had two major NPOV objections, and multiple minor objections. Major objection #1 - a definition of "milita" was inserted into the opening sentence. Unfortunately, the second amendment itself does not define "militia", and there are competing definitions. The single definition presented only one view, and was not NPOV. Major objection #2 - the words "to this end" imply that the second phrase is dependent on the first. This is also a topic of much dispute and NPOV in itself. Most of my minor objections are trivial and can wait until the sentence stabilizes. - O^O

O^0, you describe 'to this end' as a topic of much dispute, which it is, but the ultimate authority is the Supreme Justice. Why do people of lesser authority who have dispute have equal weight as the greater authority of the Supreme Court in the US v Miller ruling? The Founding Fathers provided a mechanism to resolve the ambiguity in the Second Amendment with Article III, the Supreme Justice. The Supreme Court acted to resolve the ambiguity regarding dependency of the clauses when they wrote 'obvious purpose...must' regarding militia and the 2A. Please explain why lessor authority should have equal weight with greater authority when determining the neutral balance point? BruceHallman 05:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote in the main article earlier today, "Still, the Supreme Court has ruled in passing in 22 out of 27 times while quoting or paraphrasing only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language of the Second Amendment, without ever mentioning the Militia Clause, and this treatment has evidenced clear support of the Second Amendment as an individual right and not as a collective right.[11] " Hence, I would suggest that the viewpoint that you suggest, that the "Militia ... to that end..." construct is clearly a minority viewpoint relative to the Supreme Court's own history of rulings. Picking just a single US vs. Miller to prove your minority viewpoint (based on the Supreme Court's own rulings) is not a particularly strong argument. For that reason, I don't believe that the "to that end" is needed in the introductory sentence. Yaf 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, I am sorry but I disagree with the neutrality of your source and by extension the neutrality of your "22 of 27" edit. "Volokh holds a libertarian political ideology." Eugene_Volokh. "Miller is the only case directly relating to the Second Amendment". United_States_v._Miller

26 of the 27 Mr. Volokh references do not directly relate to the Second Amendment. Many of the references are noted as 'disent' or quotes of earlier disent and are give equal weight. [[12] The one case of the Supreme Court that does directly relate to the Second Amendment uses the words "obvious purpose...must" regarding the purpose being miliita. I would still appreciate an answer to my earlier question about the relative weight of the authority when determining the neutral balance point. BruceHallman 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that this edit, or that its insertion, is based on a verifiable source? As you have so well-stated previously, we are not to do original research in writing inputs for articles in Wikipedia, but are instead to base our inputs on verifiable sources. As Mr. Volokh testified before Congress, and since his words are public record (which were referenced), and since the insertion in the article includes all these details, I don't see the issue. On the other hand, if we find a verifiable source with a different viewpoint that conflicts with Mr. Volokh's position, then I wouldn't have any issue with inserting this in as well, or if you inserted it, or if anyone else inserted it, for maintaining article balance. However, if there is no published dissent with his scholarship, then this would seem to indicate that it was accurate. (Of course, the absence of something doesn't prove the existence of something. To think otherwise would be a logical fallacy.) As for his holding Libertarian viewpoints, I likewise don't see that this is relevant. I personally don't care if he were a little green Martian with Martian viewpoints testifying before Congress, as long as his scholarship was valid, the quotes were accurate, verifiable sources were noted, and so forth. Personally, I think testimony given before Congress is quite good for providing a gravitas beyond just mere supposition. Similarly, I don't see the issue with including all conflicting viewpoints (provided they meet the same degrees of meeting Wikipedia guidelines). As for the relative weight of the authority (or authorities), if one believes Mr. Volokh, then it is the Supreme Court itself, which is the ultimate authority on these issues, and which I think we all agree. On the other hand, if one does not believe Mr. Volokh's testimony relative to the Supreme Court, then it should be easy to find an equally-verifiable and documented source, claiming Mr. Volokh was somehow mistaken, and most likely also showing where his scholarship was wrong The neutral balance point of the article is simply the point at which the article stabilizes, based on verifiable facts, which are properly documented, and which are used in crafting the article. Yaf 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Volokh is hardly hard core proof of anything since his work has been challenged by a variety of scholars.If one quotes scholarly authority one must do so in a way that takes stock of the full range of this debate and not selectively quotes from writing supporting gun rights or gun control. -- (comment by User:128.146.26.140)

OK. Then it ought to be easy for you to contribute to the article and to quote one of these alternative viewpoints, rather than just making anonymous complaints and providing no documentation or claims for an alternative viewpoint. If you have documented references and/or quotations, with verifiable citations, then put them into the article. Otherwise, complaining without contributing won't accomplish much. Yaf 03:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see a critique of Volokh all you need to do is look at the Konig essay in Law and History Review. Or if you prefer just consider what Blackstone says about the function of preambles, "If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point." While you are at it you might look at Heyman's Chicago Kent essay on the misuse of Blackstone in this debate. Unless you read both sides of the debate and check the primary sources you can't be a genuine participant in this debate.

Who's this 141.156.208.66 guy?!

Seems to be some kind of anti-gun rights troll; if you look at his list of contributions, has gone on a rampage changing many gun-related pages into gun control blather. I vote he be banned.

Dullfig 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AHA!! reverse dns lookup points to www.bradymail.com. Cute. Real cute. These guys don't give up. Typical left wing stuff, can't discuss issues on the merits, have to go vandalizing. I'm not surprised. Dullfig 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yabbut try whois bradymail.com — it's Brady Corporation of Milwaukee, not the Brady Campaign to Monopolize Gun Violence. —Tamfang 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet for mail.bradymail.org (141.156.208.66) using traceroute. His IP should be banned. Yaf 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

and, oops, bradymail.org (unlike bradymail.com) is connected with the Entity Formerly Known As National Coalition to Ban Handguns (see whois). —Tamfang 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the term standard Model was coined by Glenn Reynolds in the last 20 years it is hard to see how anyone could argue that the Supreme Court adopted this viewpoint in the 19th century--unless you believe in time travel. Only one case before the Civil War mentions the Amendment and it does not even get the number right. I suggest you look closely at Story, not just the quotes people cite, but the whole discussion. Story very clearly sees the right in expansive terms, but ties it to the militia. His reading fits either the expansive or so called sophisticated collective rights model or the civic one. To find a clear statement of the individual rights view in this period you would need to go to someone like Spooner, hardly a typical figure. — (comment by User:24.145.225.26)

Enter Stage Right

The section on US v Miller contains an external link that might be considered slanted. Since it generally agrees with me I'm not gonna remove it, but heads up to those of you who feel differently. ;) —Tamfang 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the external link to point simply to the actual text of the Supreme Court ruling on Findlaw.com because it is more neutral. BruceHallman 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The legislative process edit.

The third paragraph of the Legislative Process section says this:

It should be noted that the Bill of Rights Madison introduced on June 8th were not numbered amendments to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4 following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights. Madison did not propose inserting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the First Article Section 9 in which Congress's powers concerning the Militia are specified. This indicates Madison considered the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an individual right. (Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1sesss., 451) (Rutland, rev.ed., 196-202)

It could be made more neutral, shorter, less interpretive like this:

It should be noted that the Bill of Rights Madison introduced on June 8th were not numbered amendments to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4 following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights. (Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1sesss., 451) (Rutland, rev.ed., 196-202)

BruceHallman 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Miller again

The Miller court did not say "the law is question is constitutional," which is what "sustained" means; it said "we lack sufficient evidence to say the law is unconstitutional" (paraphrase). So I changed "sustained" to "provisionally sustained"; is there a better wording? —Tamfang 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The District Court "sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment" and the Supreme Court "Reveresed and remanded." How is this best summarized as 'provisionally sustained'?

I don't understand what you see as provisional, please explain.

The words "Reversed and remanded.", a direct quote from Miller would be more accurate. BruceHallman 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the case was never finally resolved, and the constitutionality of the NFA never determined, because no court ever corrected what the Supreme Court identified as the defect in the District Court's actions by taking evidence on whether a short shotgun has military use. —Tamfang 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the troublesome phrase entirely; it was redundant. —Tamfang 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the elephant in the room is the fact that: Ever since Miller, appellate courts have cited Miller as reason that private guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. I have added language of this fact and tried to use neutral wording. BruceHallman 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, would you cite specifics when you edited in the word 'almost' in the Miller section? Also, as the Second Amendment is a federal issue, and not directly a state issue, why edit the word federal out? I could accept a sentence describing both federal court and state courts. BruceHallman 14:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For "almost", well, at least one Circuit disagrees. I also cut a sentence which happened to contain the word "federal", because it disregarded the District Court in Miller itself as well as another District ruling within the past few years, sorry I've forgotten the specifics. In a perfect world there would be some mention of a recent Ninth Circuit case in which one of the judges wrote, "Since we're only a three-judge panel we have to follow the Ninth Circuit precedent which misreads Miller, but I hope it can be reviewed en banc someday." —Tamfang 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote: "No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." was accurate. You describe the remanded district court decision that preceded US v. Miller, but that is inconsistent with your edit where you wrote the words 'since "Miller"'.

Both phrases, "in history" and "since Miller", were yours, I think. Are you saying history begins with Miller? —Tamfang 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your 'I've forgotten the specifics' explanation fails the Wikipedia verifiability policy.

Unless you have a verifiable source for "no federal court in history", removing any statement one way or the other seems the conservative thing to do. —Tamfang 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I concede that there are minority dissenting opinions, the reality is: there is no 'court in history [that] has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds'. That fact is relevant considering that US v. Miller is a very important cited precedent in court since 1939.

If you read carefully you may note that I did not say that a dissenting opinion (actually it wasn't a dissent, if memory serves) is enough to invalidate "the reality". —Tamfang 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this edit as a compromise: "Even so, since US v. Miller no court has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." BruceHallman 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

O^O, you deleted the sentence "No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." calling it an 'old mistake'. Could you please cite a verifiable reference for your claim? Thanks. BruceHallman 19:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi BruceHallman - I think that the edit in question was made by Tamfang, not by me. - O^O

Yeah, the "two old mistakes" were in the Text section. — Found what I wanted. Northern Texas Federal District Court rules that "18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) violates the Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution." [13] It's a Federal court, and it's after Miller. —Tamfang 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)