Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 1

Global topic
The Right to Bear Arms is broad global topic beyond the United States of America. Simply redirecting this page to the Second Amendment of the United States is inaccurate. There are significant point of view conflicts, the largest being that there is a disagreement whether the Second Amendment creates a right to bear arms, or whether the Second Amendment only preserves a right to bear arms found elsewhere. Secondly, the World right to bear arms is a different POV that USA right to bear arms. In any case, simply redirecting this web page to the Second Amendment of the United States is decidedly a non-neutral point of view. BruceHallman 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the UDHR mention arms? Zetetic Apparatchik 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that UDHR mentions arms, but rather Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.. I understand that some argue that right to 'security of person' includes the right of (armed) self defense, and that the right to 'liberty' includes the right of recreation, such as the right to recreational uses of arms, etc.. BruceHallman 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case this article seems to actually be equating the rights to security to the right to bear arms. Which seems very debateable and POV. Am I reading it right? Zetetic Apparatchik 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, though that POV is widespread. I think that historically, security with personal arms, dating back to daggers and swords as protection for travelers, this POV has commonly existed. I would welcome your editing to describe the various POV's about this, including the dabate, and to bring more neutrality to the POV. BruceHallman 17:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias
The various rights to bear arms are obviously a global issue, and the United States represents only a small portion of the global interests, but this article devotes half or more of the content to the United States. Hopefully, Wikipedia editors can also contribute to expanding the article to include the right to bear arms in regions of the world outside the United States, and outside juridictions with English judicial origin. BruceHallman 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it isn't much of an issue outside the USA. There is a debate in the UK about how far one can go in defending one's property but it isn't couched in these terms. The USA is a special case since the "right to bear arms" is mentioned in the constitution and there is an ongoing debate about how this is to be interpreted in today's circumstances. Exile 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, certainly to a very large extent. And, I see, there is an ongoing R2BA debate in Australia too. BruceHallman 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * waves his bear arms around* Yay for the 2nd amendment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.93.28.193 (talk • contribs).


 * See the section "English/British history and the heritage of common law" Circusandmagicfan 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * The "right to bear arms" is very definitely not mentioned in the US constitution, but the "right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA) is. Why the distinction? "Right to bear arms" is a common adulteration of the text used by gun control supporters to throw "keep and" down the memory hole, as RKBA doesn't fit with their collectivist interpretation. Please see the discussion heading "Title is not NPOV." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.201.209 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of date references
On 10/28/1999, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe discussed the update to his text American Constitutional Law in the New York Times: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1999Militias.pdf He notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

In "Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals" by Tony Mauro, USA Today 8/27/99, Tribe discussed an article authored by Amar (quoted in 1992 in the extant Wikipedia entry) and him saying, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

In commenting on the reaction to his corrected position, he observed, "I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?' [...] But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

The present article ignores this new reality, preferring an out-dated viewpoint. Bob Alfson 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you read the present article? It appears, to my eye at least, to adequately accommodate and represent the various points of view, including Mr. Tribe's.  BruceHallman 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of references, the article cites a "study" from an entity called the Potowmack Institute concluding "that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service." A quick review of the study finds it to be, in my view, based largely on circular reasoning. Is the Potowmack Institute a reliable source? I can't find any references to it on Google Books or Google Scholar, and the site looks kind of like a one-man operation, which raises verifiability and OR concerns. This is the type of study that should have some kind of peer review or at least the name of a reputable scholar behind it. PubliusFL 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of gun uses
This list of "gun uses" is embarrassing to the article. You could add "use them as paperweights" if you want to. It definitely doesn't belong in this article. Sparsefarce 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

English/British history and the heritage of common law
There seems to be some dispute about the position of English common law in terms of whether it is a source of a right or a responsibility to bear arms.

I'm British and my concern is that British history and law is being misrepresented in order to fit the needs of certain positions that are mostly or entirely to do with the firearms debate in America. I am not unsympathetic to some of the arguments for responsible gun ownership for certain purposes (I have shot rifles and pistols competitively). However, in addition to the fact that having Americans lecture us about English law is guaranteed to annoy many Brits, it would be better if the debate on firearms were conducted on better and more contemporary foundations.

For what it's worth, here are my problems with what's been written in Wikipedia. Whilst I do not dispute there have been a number of pieces of law at various times that obliged Englishmen to keep weapons or practice their use, I do dispute that those requirements have remained in law. Furthermore there is a debate to be had about when they ceased to be part of English law.

Some contributors here seem to place a great deal of emphasis on certain medeival statutes, such as the much quoted Assize of Arms of 1181 and the Statute of Winchester of 1285. The article text seems to suggest these statutes created responsibilities that formed a part of common law into the modern era. I think there are two problems with that: Firstly in the interpretation of the original statutes and, secondly, in the picture that has been presented of common law.

First the statutes. The Assize of Arms of 1181 was specifically an attempt to ensure that the monarch could assemble an army in times of conflict. It was certainly not about providing for citizens to defend themselves against any excesses of the state and it is doubtful whether the king had citizens' self-defence in mind at all when he instituted the measure. The assize was part of a series of military measures during Henry II's reign (including the Cartae Baronum of 1166) and it is recognised by British Army historians as one of the roots of the concept of a high quality army with properly maintained weapons. In considering the 1285 Statue of Winchester it should be borne in mind that this dealt with the appointment of an early form of police; basically lords of the manor were to draft local men to serve as constables and those men had to be equipped and able to do the job. In other words it was about state control rather than limiting state powers.

Next English history and common law. A central feature of the common law system in England (and subsequently the United Kingdom) is the way it provides for law to be interpreted in accordance with custom. Customs change with time and so, to an extent, law becomes interpreted in keeping with the times. Of course it is more complex than that because the role of case law means that interpretation includes an element of history while, at the same time, fresh statutes can overrule historic precedent. Even if the statutes in question remained a theoretical part of English law centuries after they were passed, any interpretation of their standing would have to take into account the times and circumstances.

Whilst it is true the army in England was assembled on militia lines for several centuries after the assize of 1181, it has to be recognised that there was a time when this declined and was replaced by the modern concept of a state with a standing army. (By coincidence this was not long after the "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648, which is seen as the beginning of the modern system of states). Charles II issued the Royal Warrant that created the genesis of what would become the British Army in 1661. I agree that the Bill of Rights of 1689 placed restrictions on the military power of the monarch. I also agree it contains the oft quoted passage that "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law." However, as I wrote in the article, the words "as allowed by Law" indicate this was always a qualified rather than a universal right. The bottom line is that in the period between 1661 and the beginning of the American War of Independence the custom or tradition of militias and armed citizenship in Britain was declining and being replaced by the modern concept of a state with professional forces that provide for the security of its citizens.

This is obviously a point at which there is a divergence between American and British views. In America the settlers were very much a group of citizens fighting against a state and it is understandable that they felt the need for personal weapons to protect against state aggression. And as settlers in an undeveloped land they already had an established need for weapons for self defence and hunting. These factors must surely have been in the minds of the founding fathers when they were drafting the US constitution. When they drew on elements of English common law they did so selectively based upon what they perceived as the needs of the nation they were founding. I'm not arguing that they were wrong - they did what was right at the time. What I am arguing is that the American view, which traces some of its roots back to those early post-independence years, is not a complete or representative picture of English law.

By the time of US independence the concept of Englishmen having a "responsibility" to keep arms was obsolete. The question of the right of citizens to keep arms is another matter. That is something which continued to evolve, in culture and in law, right up to the 20th century. I guess you could argue that the matter was only finally settled in 1920 with the first Firearms Act, which placed the right to bear arms very clearly in the domain of statute law. However any right to keep or use weapons had ceased to be an unqualified right centuries beforehand. It was always a right that was subject to regulation and much of its early provision was rooted in the desire of national leaders to be able to call upon armed citizens to serve the state.

Circusandmagicfan 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Excellent discussion. Many good points.  However, upon your statement that, "By the time of US independence the concept of Englishmen having a "responsibility" to keep arms was obsolete" this depends in large part on which Englishmen are being discussed.  For Englishmen living in the colonies of America just prior to the Revolution, it was a responsibility for each able-bodied man upon reaching the age of majority to maintain a musket, and a  specified amount of powder and lead  ball. This was not merely a permissive condition, but was a statutory requirement and responsibility  in the colonies. Whether this was a remnant from the earlier French & Indian War, or due to the wilderness to the western edge of the colonies being inhabited by natives who were an ever-present threat, the statutory responsibility was what stood in the colonies for Englishmen.  It was also a matter of right in England that Englishmen there could still then own and use weapons, although I think your points are well-stated that the responsibility to maintain them as a responsibility there had largely ceased to exist much earlier. In writing for an encyclopedia, it is always a balancing act to contain adequate detail without including much too much detail in an article.  Your comments are well stated, and point to the need to be ever vigilent in making sure the content of articles such as this one represents a world view, while still being factually accurate. Parliamentary supremacy, of course, permitted common law in England, and in many other English-law derived jurisdictions to evolve as you state, whereas the constitution in the United States largely froze the rights of Englishmen at the time of the Revolution in a suspended state, with no permitted future infractions of common law rights by Congress, barring future constitutional amendments of course. A common heritage, but different paths subsequent to the Revolution, have largely led to where we are today.  Yaf 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points on both sides. The American colonists certainly considered themselves to be standing up for their rights as Englishmen.  But the article could use a more nuanced description of the transition from responsibility to right to, well, nothing, in England proper. PubliusFL 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Circusandmagicfan makes an important point in stressing the difference in arms ownership as an obligation and as a right. Not the least, the ownership usually came with specific duties such as regular drills or mandatory training. The concept of a right not coming with any duties other than those of every other citizen is, as far as I can see it, fairly modern, because it requires a standing security force as a dependable source of security, since the comparatively untrained civilians not required to take part in regular drills lacks effectiveness especially against external threats. So, when talking about civilian ownership of arms in pre-US-independence history, we're not really talking about issues of rights at all, but of duties, a point that unfortunately is often muddled. --84.61.118.44 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The distinction is important but I think 84.61.118.44 might be misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I have said. These early instances of rights in English law did indeed come about in conjunction with duties imposed by national leaders, who sought to ensure they could quickly turn citizens into an army when required. However I am not arguing that there is some sort of fundamental underlying duty on everyone to have arms. Those obligations declined as countries became more developed entities with professional armed forces. By the time of the American Civil War there was no general duty on Englishmen to have arms. I argue that what happened was that the founding fathers asserted a right to bear arms when they created the United States. They did that because of their experiences as part of an armed independence movement (which is understandable and reasonable) and additionally because they were in a frontier territory where firearms were a common part of the survival kit. My message to Americans is feel free to develop your arguments for a right to arms from that point but do not try to project that back onto English history because the situation in England was a different matter. It is true that people were legally able to carry personal arms in England at the time and that some people did so for personal protection purposes but the culture was somewhat different.
 * Circusandmagicfan 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * I'd like to know what Circusfan thinks about the right/obligation debate vis a vis the existence of the English longbow/bodkin arrowhead. What I mean is that the English longbow was part of a very simple weapon system that was relatively easy to make, required only skills which a great many people already had, and yet had an enormous amount of power in that it could penetrate any personal armor of the day.  What I'm getting at is, do you think there was a certain amount of "mission creep" that this weapon brought about?  That is, did the power and ease of access to this weapon help to change the responsibility to be armed into the right to be armed?  Johnny Wishbone 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
A short while ago I reverted the introduction (mostly re-introduction) of some information I felt to be redundant and/or OR. The first part discussed how the word "arms" can include swords, knives etc. as well as firearms. This point was already included later in the article. The second sentence discusses "bearing arms" as being synonymous with military service. This is also redundant with (sourced) information later in the article (also redundant with the Potowmack reference discussed below). Next was a list of "types of rights to bear arms." This list appeared to me to be a recreation of the list of gun uses which was previously in the article, was objected to on the talk page above, and previously removed from the article. It is unsourced and appears to me to be original research. Finally, there was a reference to a study by the "Potowmack Institute." I expressed concerns about the reliability of this source on this talk page a couple of months ago. When no one defended the study I replaced it with a much more scholarly source making the same point (Uviller & Merkel). PubliusFL 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The book The Militia and the Right to Arms seems to make the mistake to talk of 'Arms' as opposed to expression 'Bear Arms'. This is a common POV distortion of the predominate colonial historical meaning of 'Bear Arms'.  Take a look at the usage of the expression 'Bear Arms' in the Declaration of Independence; military service on a ship, an example of the colonial meaning of the expression.  The Potowmack Institute citation includes exhaustive referencing, and your concerns about reliability is unfounded and appear based upon your POV.  This listing of types of rights is necessary due to the global nature of this article which should not be USA centric.  That list of types is not original research and can be easily sourced.  BruceHallman 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PubliusFL wrote: "I expressed concerns about the reliability of this source on this talk page a couple of months ago." Could you please point to the diff showing this, thanks.  BruceHallman 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here you go: - it's above in the "out of date references" section, right below your comment from 6 Dec 06.  My objection to the Potowmack Institute is based on lack of reference to the Potowmack Institute in any reputable publication, not on my POV.  Uviller and Merkel do discuss the expression "bear arms" rather than just the term "arms," and make essentially the same point as the Potowmack Institute.  See the following, for example, at pages 26-27: "In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . .  As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceeduings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."  I'm not trying to censor the point - I actually think this ought to be fleshed out more in the article.  I just think a book by a respected law professor, published by a major university press, is a better source for the point than a web page by an organization of dubious reputation and reliability. PubliusFL 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that clears it up for me, I appreciate your response. Could you address my concern about the revert of the 'types of rights' section, such information seems relevant to serve the global scope of the article. BruceHallman 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, PubliusFL, please explain your 'redundant' criticism about reverted items in the opening paragraph. As the intent of the opening paragraph is to 'frame' and to summarize the main points in the following article, literally everything should be redundant in the opening paragraph.  Choosing which points are main points often requires a delicate balance of POV, and one side's idea of what is a main point often does not match the other sides idea.  For instance, I view that the historical 'military service' definition of 'bear arms' is an extremely important main point and you do not.  Redundancy has little to do with it, the question is: what rises to the significance of 'main point'?  And, the neutrality balance.  BruceHallman 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What "bear arms" does NOT (as far as we know) mean
Just wondering if something should be put in. While the term is fairly clear, "bear arms" could have the literal sense too. In one Family Guy non sequitur, the writers of the Constitution talk about whether the term "bear arms" is clear enough, which one replies that it's perfectly clear and points to a pair of bear (the animal) arms on a plaque above the fireplace. While I know this is a serious article, and the previous example is just for comedy, but I think it would have some relevance in the "Definition of bear arms" section. Just a thought. Eridani 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me check if I understand; are you proposing a clarification to specify that "bear arms" does not refer to the forelimbs of animals in the Ursidae family? - O^O 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Eridani 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat Paulsen
The late comedian, when "running" for President, was asked about hunting and the right to bear arms. He answered that he believed in the right to arm bears. Wahkeenah 08:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871)
With the recent back and forth selectively quoting from Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871), I was looking online and only find blogs from one fringe of the POV citing from this case. Can anyone find attribution from a 'reliable published source' analyzing this state law opinion? Specifcially: reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. (And, guncite is not such.)  If possible, this books.google.com search string should have had some hits. Otherwise, justify why this seeming obscure case meets the requirements of WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some possible sources mentioning Andrews v. State include Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 by Stephen P. Halbrook, Thomas M. Cooley's Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott's Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American Or English Jurisprudence, and The Bill of Rights Review from the American Bar Association Bill of Rights Committee, 1942. I personally think the case itself meets the requirements of WP:ATT/WP:RS.  Why is a state supreme court opinion not a reliable published source?  Guncite is not the publisher of the opinion, it's only a convenient online source for its text.  I would agree that any commentary or analysis added by Guncite would not qualify under WP:ATT or WP:RS, but that doesn't seem to be the case. PubliusFL 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of credibility, and therefore, am not convinced that Guncite has accurately transcribed the text. You mention 'possible sources', do you know of 'actual sources'?  If the citation from Guncite is not 'commentary or analysis' then what upon what basis is the edit made?  Lacking an answer, the editing of the section with the risk that selective quoting might distorts the meaning, the editing appears to be original research.  SaltyBoatr 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I put up the link for the convenience of readers, and to make it easy to see that the court was talking about the Tennessee constitution and not the 2nd Amendment. I don't see any reason to doubt the text provided by Guncite, but I would not object to removing the link, either.  But once the link is removed, I don't see how your "selective quoting" issue is different from what might be said about ANY offline reliable source.  Any time someone cites something without putting up the entire text of the source, the quoting is "selective" and potentially reflects the bias of the editor who introduced the source. PubliusFL 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you're concerned about whether the editor who put the quotes from Andrews into this article "accurately transcribed the text," it appears that those specific quotes are attested to in the August 2004 Department of Justice memo on the 2nd Amendment and in Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right to Bear Arms in Texas,” 41 Baylor Law Review, 629-88(1989). PubliusFL 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aware of the citation in the Ashcroft memo, but that is obviously a political document, not scholarly and not books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. On page 96 of that memo, when they write 'Setting aside any distinction...', in that there is distinction, they largely negate their premise. Regarding Hallbrook, can you tell which page of the 162 page document you are thinking of? SaltyBoatr 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll address my opinion on the "selective quoting" of Andrews. I think it will help to keep in mind the context of why we are quoting that case in this article at all. The subsection in question is discussing the phrase "keep arms", and we are using historical quotations to illustrate understanding of this phrase.  This article is most definitely not the place for analysis of the Andrews case.  Since our goal is to illustrate "keep arms", I object to adding quotes from Andrews that have nothing to do with that phrase.
 * Moving on, I agree with PubliusFL, we are citing the case itself, not analysis from guncite. If someone is concerned that guncite mistranscribed the case, they are welcome to compare it to the original published sources; Page 165, volume 50 of the Tennessee Reports, or Page 8, volume 8 of American State Reports. Note that 50 Tenn will actually be found as 3 Heiskell (Joseph Brown Heiskell) because the first 138 volumes were published in the name of the court reporter, not in the name of the court. - O^O 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my concern is that there is a violation of Wikipedia policy with the use of a primary source. There can be no doubt that a specialized knowledge is required to read legal jargon in general, and especially with reading Nineteenth Century legal jargon.  Therefore the direct use of the court decision as a primary source is disallowed per WP:NOR, which says in part: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them.  For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."  And more, choosing which passages to quote is certainly a form of interpretation, and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.  SaltyBoatr 00:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If your concern is WP:NOR, then why didn't you raise that above instead of your WP:ATT questions? WP:NOR does not, and never has, prohibited the use of primary sources. They are to be used with care, and we are so using the Andrews case here.  We are making no assertions as to how the "right to keep arms" should be interpreted by modern courts, nor are we using this case to reach any novel conclusion. We are simply quoting the case (as a primary source) to provide a historical quote for how "right to keep arms" has been interpreted in the past.  collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.
 * Please bear in mind that Right to keep and bear arms redirects here, and this article remains very light on discussion of "keep arms", and very light on any historical discussion of that phrase. Please bring any other quotes you may have, but this one, without our adding interpretation, is suitable. - O^O 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I consider myself an average reader, and I have difficultly understanding Ninteenth Century legal jargon, especially when it is selectively quoted and lacking context. Is there any doubt that anyone—without specialist knowledge would also have trouble? No.

I am not saying we cannot rely upon that Andrews v. State, I am just asking that we use secondary source material. I also agree that the subject 'keep arms' is important. My request to use secondary sourcing is not unreasonable and my request is fair and allowed per WP policy. What is your problem with finding secondary sources? SaltyBoatr 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bear Arms in context of a state.
See the book, A history of the Inquisition of Spain, by Henry Charles Lea, Pages 401-411. New York, Macmillan Co.; London, Macmillan & Co., 1906-07. OCLC: 1485109 Which discusses the privilege to 'bear arms' belonging only to the King. SaltyBoatr 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Collective Right
There is no source given actually supporting the claim that "Throughout the history of the country the courts have broadly and uniformly interpreted the right to bear arms in United States as a collective right". The earliest case mentioned is from 1939, nearly 150 years after the Amendment was ratified. That case as easily supports the individual rights argument as the Court agreed that Miller had standing, which he would not have, had there been no individual right under the Second Amendment. It is true that in recent history, the lower courts have held the right to be collective in nature, but that is not the same as "throughout the history of the country". I have changed the sentence to reflect this by inserting the word "recent". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.90.251 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I have to agree that something needs to be done about that claim. The only sources cited are a blog entry (which is now nothing but a 404 error) and the Brady Campaign (which is clearly not a neutral source).  Either a better source should be added, or the statement should be taken out (or at least rewritten to be less broad, sweeping, and certain). PubliusFL 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right, Brady is not an NPOV source. I just edited that sentence to closely match the similar wording found in a credible school textbook, with full citation provided here.  SaltyBoatr 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement, but it's still problematic. First, it assumes that "right to bear arms" is the same thing as "Second Amendment."  This article is about the former, not the latter.  Many state constitutions have right to bear arms provisions that indisputably do protect an individual rather than collective right.  The textbook you cite appears to be focused exclusively on the federal constitution.  Second, my understanding is that state court decisions prior to the Slaughterhouse era were not particularly consistent about the individual v. collective nature of the right to bear arms, even as it pertains to the Second Amendment.  Things have been pretty consistent between the late 1800s and U.S. v. Emerson, but not so much before then. PubliusFL 16:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is about the United States and an emphasis on the federal makes sense. I suppose adding sections to cover individual states, when they differ, is possible.  Probably, we should add a sentence that says the federal gives the individual states each extremely wide discretion to regulate or not regulate guns.


 * I have seen the 'pro-gun' POV discussion groups, blogs, political motivated reports and speeches and pro-gun commentary that matches your 'understanding', but I haven't seen this 'understanding' in neutral credible school textbooks. I just took out a 'fringe' citation, Brady.  I replaced it with a clearly neutral credible citation, a school textbook.  Can we agree to try to avoid the use of 'fringe' citations, from both sides?  SaltyBoatr 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In short, I ask that sources meet the 'most reliable' standard found in WP:ATT. quoting: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. SaltyBoatr 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely POV discussion groups, blogs, etc. would be inappropriate. But law review citations and court citations are certainly doable.  It is not reasonably disputable that on two occasions state courts struck down state firearms regulations based on the Second Amendment (In re Brickey and Nunn v. State), and that a number of other state courts have either struck down laws on the basis of state constitutional provisions, or concluded that the right to bear arms is individual in nature but permitted the regulation at issue in a particular case.  "Consistently" is misleading.  "Generally" might be a more accurate description. PubliusFL 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Generally" seems more accurate than "consistently" for the federal constitution, especially with the recent changes with Parker, et al.  School textbooks are sometimes a bit dated, which is what I think the issue may be here.  Yaf 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

colonial era discussion section needs work
This whole group of paragraphs appears to be original research, lacks credible citations and is plagued by weasel wording. Moving here for fixing: SaltyBoatr 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

''There are numerous colonial era discussions of the right to bear arms, some of which are viewed as supportive of an individual rights view. In Federalist paper 46, James Madison argued: “… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison is often regarded as the father of the Bill of Rights, though the Bill of Rights was a compromise achieved through negotiations during the First Congress of the United States.

Some believe the individual rights definition is bolstered by the fact that the Second Amendment states that the "people" have a right to keep and bear arms. The phrase "the people" as it exists elsewhere in the Bill of Rights is not used to express the meaning of the state or the military. For instance, when the First Amendment speaks of the right of "people" to peaceably assemble and the right of the "people" to free speech, the Bill of Rights is speaking of individual rights not the rights of the state or government, which is why those who subscribe to textualism believe that so too does the right to keep and bear arms belong to the people, as no such distinction was made in the text of the Bill of Rights.

“Individual rights” proponents maintain that: The “state’s rights” view of bearing arms only became known in the late 20th century motivated by a desire for stricter gun control laws.

James Madison, a noted Federalist, wrote: “… still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.” States are forbidden in the U.S. Constitution from keeping troops independent from the Federal government but must rely on citizen militias for their defense.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #29, states: “This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

Ultimately, Federalists and Anti-Federalists negotiated their differences during the First Congress with the resulting compromise becoming the Bill of Rights.''

Ashcroft memo
Please read the CNN article more carefully, the 2004 'individual rights' OLC memo was documenting the 2001 opinion. Quoting the article: "The opinion, expected to be issued by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, would follow the lead of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft." SaltyBoatr 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your source is not about the 2004 opinion, it's from 2001. It's anticipating the opinion, but you can't say that "the issuance" of the opinion was the subject of the ethics complaint, because the ethics complaint was filed more than three years before the opinion was issued.  And the substance of the ethics complaint was that it was inappropriate for Ashcroft in a personal capacity to publicly express an opinion (via his letter to the NRA) which contradicted the official opinion of his client.  But the OLC opinion became the official opinion of his client, so the same reasoning doesn't apply.  Unless you can find a source discussing ethics issues after the opinion became official, this is very inappropriate. PubliusFL 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 2004 connection to the 2001 opinion is clear. Notice that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to the 2004 memorandum states: "The memorandum memorializes and expands upon the advice this office provided to you on this question in 2001".  Without a doubt, the 2004 memorandum memorializes...2001. Also, you are incorrect to describe the Ashcroft letter to the NRA as 'personal', as the letter was written under official letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General, and Ashcroft signed the letter using his formal title 'Attorney General'.  SaltyBoatr 01:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is original research when I read the 2001 CNN article which describes that this 'individual rights' opinion was "expected to be issued" and indeed was issued in 2004. The memo is dated 2004 and documents the 'individual rights' Ashcroft opinion of 2001.  SaltyBoatr 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that a paragraph describing the topic of the 'individual rights' position about bearing arms of the Department of Justice during the Aschroft era is notable and justified in this Right to bear arms article. Though this paragraph covering this topic, as presently written, clearly needs some work.  The topic does not begin with the 2004 memo documenting the 2001 opinion, indeed it appears to begin with the May 17, 2001 Ashcroft letter to James Baker.  The criticism of the Ashcroft opinion is real, and I welcome your help fixing the paragraph.  Simply reverting the criticism of the Ashcroft position, and ignoring the 2001 origin of the opinion, is 'seeing a tree instead of a forest'.  This paragraph is defective if it only focuses upon the 2004 memo and not the 2001 opinion and the May 17, 2001 letter.  I also consider the paragraph defective, as presently written, because the only citation is based on the primary source, in violation of WP:NOR. I welcome your help fixing this.  Considering this WP:NOR violation, I am moving this paragraph here for fixing.  SaltyBoatr 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On August 24, 2004, the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel wrote a Memorandum Opinion for the United States Attorney General. It stated, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."  Moved paragraph here for fixing.  SaltyBoatr 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some quick thoughts. First, as I see it the relevance of the OLC memo to this article is to give a pointer to what the current official position of the US DoJ is.  The history of the memo and going into the personal actions of Ashcroft is very tangential to this article.  I don't think this article should go into detail describing the arguments contained in the memo or discussing its merits/demerits, and I don't think the article should go into tangential issues surrounding the memo.  Second, I don't understand where your claim of an NOR violation comes from.  NOR doesn't say you can't mention primary sources.  It says you can't use primary sources to analyze or synthesize the facts contained therein.  "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."  The paragraph in question does not attempt to analyze or interpret the opinion. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."  Also, "an article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."  The paragraph in question only makes very limited descriptive claims, so I don't see how it violates NOR.  It says who wrote the opinion and when.  It quotes the very first sentence of the opinion, which is quite obviously a statement the authors of the opinion intended to highlight as a summary of the opinion, so there's no problem with selective or misleading quotation. PubliusFL 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this constitutional question, I see this opinion of Executive Branch to be at best tangentially relevant carrying very little weight, but certainly reflective of the DOJ political interests in the right to bear arms as indicated in the CNN link you twice deleted. Also, the selective quotation in that paragraph effectively amounts to an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim and is the 'original research', not the actual link to the source document. SaltyBoatr 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court has appealate jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" involving federal laws and the constitution. Any case or controversy involving the second amendment would be between the Executive Branch and a third party.  The opinion of the Executive Branch is just as relevant, if not more so, than the opinion of the Supreme Court 72.197.197.215 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation of 'bear arms' as in military service, versus bearing 'weapons'
Explaining my revert, The military service meaning of 'bear arms' is significant and not covered by the word 'weapons'. In colonial era usage, to 'bear arms' did not require access to weapons. See for instance the Declaration of Independence, where American sailors conscripted to man British ships were said to 'bear arms'. These sailors would only have had access to the ship's sails, mooring lines etc.. Yet, the Americans would have been excluded from access to the ship's weapons and gunpowder as precaution against sabotage and revolt. These conscripted American sailors were still described as 'bearing arms' on the British ships. SaltyBoatr 14:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're getting confused about the purpose of the disambiguation header. It is not part of the article itself, it is there to ensure that anyone who comes here looking for something about coats of arms is directed to the other article. All that stuff about subtle distinctions between "bear arms" and bear "arms" or whatever is really for the body of the article (it is, for example, right there in the introductory paragraph). All that's needed in the header is to flag up the difference between arms as in a design or badge and arms as in "bang, pow, weapons, fighting stuff etc".Circusandmagicfan 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * In modern popular usage 'bear arms' means 'weapons', versus the predominate colonial usage where 'bear arms' meant to 'perform military service'. This distinction is very important to the NPOV balance of the article, and to feature one definition and not the other in the disambiguation header is NPOV trouble.  You are proposing to include one POV, the 'weapons' meaning and not the the other 'military service' meaning.  I object because your suggestion violates the WP:NPOV policy.  SaltyBoatr 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could easily accept dropping the 'keep arms' part, but I recall that one editor a month or so ago insisted that 'keep arms' is important because Right to keep and bear arms redirects here. SaltyBoatr


 * I still think there's some confusion here. Is there another article somewhere that deals with "bear arms" in the sense of military service? If so then I could understand the need to differentiate between that article and this one. However that doesn't seem to be the case. The only disambiguation currently required is to differentiate between the following two areas:
 * Arms as in the crests and designs used in heraldry
 * Other uses of the words "bear arms", which are all found in this article.
 * The various different implications of "bear arms" and "keep arms" as in weapons or military contexts are dealt with in the body of the article. In particular, the introduction, which follows immediately below the disambiguation, gives a summary of the distinctions. It is not necessary to duplicate the introduction in the disambiguation header - indeed the two serve separate purposes and if one begins spilling over into the other then it reduced the effectiveness of both. The idea is that if someone arrives at this article (whether as the result of a search, a link or a re-direct) and they are looking for something on heraldry they quickly see they need to go to the other article. If they are interested in "bear arms" or "keep arms" in the sense of weapons or military situations then they read on into the intro. They do not need to branch off to another article if they are interested only in either personal possession of weapons or the military service meanings - those are both in this article. Only if this article is split into two would we need to go into more detail in disambiguation.Circusandmagicfan 08:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Actually this is the article that deals with "to bear arms", meaning the civic duty to perform military service. SaltyBoatr 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean!....The only article that needs to be distinguished from this one is the one where "arms" is used to mean a coat or arms.Circusandmagicfan 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * What perhaps you don't understand, is that in predominate colonial era usage, 'to bear arms' meant to perform military service, not 'arms' for military uses. SaltyBoatr 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do understand. It's just that, as I explained, it doesn't seem necessary to go into that subtle distinction in the header. All we need to do is make sure the people looking for the heraldry article manage to find it.Circusandmagicfan 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * I think your most recent edit, and the current version is great, thanks. Though I strongly disagree that the distinction is subtle. SaltyBoatr 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article changed to only address the right to bear arms?
It is linked from the Second Amendment article and that link is entitled 'to keep and bear arms'.

To limit this article to only a discussion of bearing arms seems slanted, unecesary and not entirely above-board.

It also ignores the context of the Second Amendments use of 'keep and bear', and thus does not really meet the implied expectations of a discussion of that phrase.


 * This is the global article, Wikipedia is not entirely United States centric. SaltyBoatr 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as we're assuming that "bear arms" means "perform military service," the title "right to keep and bear arms" is actually more global, since it covers the right to "keep arms" and the right to "bear arms." The "bear arms" discussion is most relevant to the United States.  The sections about the U.K. and Mexico deal with the right of private citizens to (in the words of the English Bill of Rights) "have arms."  Those are "keep arms" issues.  In fact, the information formerly in this article about the historic obligation of Englishmen to "bear arms" (in the sense of "perform military service") has been removed, like the bit about the Assize of Arms.  Perhaps the redirect should be reversed? PubliusFL 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you mention the phrase "keep arms" isolated from the conjunctive usage 'keep and bear'. Where exactly to you find that phrase 'keep arms'?    I am just back from a visit to the library, researching this, with the hope of working on a section about the various views about the work 'keep' associated with 'bear arms'.  Does the Second Amendment say "Keep Arms and Bear Arms", I see not.  Yet, I see in the Articles of Confederation that the term 'keep' is used  'keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia' , obviously a usage of 'keep' in context of keeping collective military service.  PubliusFL, could you please tell the source forming the basis for your hypothesis that 'keep' in the Second Amendment is isolated and we should not read keep-and-bear as conjunctive?  I would like to read the source of your information.  Or, is your idea original research? SaltyBoatr 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In short, I see that 'keep arms' meaning 'keep firearms' started in the Nineteenth Century. Indeed it is the predominate meaning today.  I am curious when this flip in meaning occurred.  I am still looking for a 'secondary  source' for this idea, but the meaning seems to first crop up during the 1840's with the debate associated with the fear of race riots prior to the Civil War.  See here, etc..  Interestingly, this coincides with the 1834 invention of the revolver.  SaltyBoatr 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing I learned in the library: that in the decades prior to the drafting of Second Amendment that very few white men owned working firearms. A study of probate records during that period found that only 14% owned guns, and half of those were broken.  And another study found that hunting with a gun was not a major source of meat for food during this period (the guns of that period were not all that effective), instead traps were used, and more commonly domesticated cows and pigs were used for a source of meat.  SaltyBoatr 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen this claim, but it is totally bogus, claiming "very few white men owned working firearms". Firearms were almost never mentioned in probate records because they were passed on prior to the decedent's death, usually in the months just prior to the death in most cases. Only in cases where death was sudden and unexpected was there ever a mention contained in the probate records. There was too much at risk to depend on the courts to do the right thing, in general.  There are several firearms in my own family where this has occurred again and again since around 1800.  These guns never appear in any probate records, and probably never will.  Of course, for broken firearms, then maybe the claim has some validity, since they were contained in probate records :-)  Firearms, though, have a useful life measured in centuries, when properly cared for.  (Traps or boxes as they were known were used in my own family, but only for small game by old men and small boys. The rest all used muskets, or rifles, or shotguns, depending on the era, for obtaining venison and larger animal meat. As for the claim the guns were not effective during that era, this is totally bogus, too.  The technique of "barking" a tree with a large caliber musket to kill a squirrel, killing the squirrel from the tree bark shrapnel, was the technique used for hunting squirrels.  It was and is very effective, as I can attest to, using period appropriate gear :-) Yaf 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about looking at the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" as plain language, not as a single legal term of art. In plain English, "have arms" (English Bill of Rights) is closer in meaning to "keep arms" than to "bear arms," especially if the article treats the phrase "bear arms" itself as a term of art.  I'll assume you're right that the phrase has a unified indivisible meaning in the Second Amendment.  That leads to two conclusions.  First, a corollary of your point that "keep arms" should not be isolated from the conjunctive usage "keep and bear arms" is that "bear arms" should not be isolated from its conjunctive usage "keep and bear arms."  Which gives a different basis for my suggestion that the redirect be reversed.  Second, by requiring the phrase to be analyzed in the same way it is used in the Second Amendment, you are overtly making the article "entirely United States centric," which you criticized above.  The English Bill of Rights, which the article currently covers, obviously deals with private possession of arms rather than military service.  Either way, the current title of the article is inadequate.  Maybe you're right that "right to keep and bear arms" is also inadequate.  Do you have a better suggestion?  Please step back from the Second Amendment for a moment - that's a different article.   PubliusFL 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This conversation cannot be a dialog, and therefore cannot be productive, if we don't answer each other's questions. Answering yours, about reversing the redirect: Initially, user º¡º chose the wording of the title for this article, not me.  R2KBA is USA-centric, and would be a step backwards in our attempts to globalize the article.  And answering yours requesting my suggestions: I added a stub section about 'keep arms' and suggest that we write thoroughly about this usage, using 'most reliable' credible sources, hopefully you will help.  Now, will you answer my questions posed above?  SaltyBoatr 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Your question to me, most fully stated, was this: "PubliusFL, could you please tell the source forming the basis for your hypothesis that 'keep' in the Second Amendment is isolated and we should not read keep-and-bear as conjunctive?"  Answer: That was not my hypothesis, as I was not talking specifically about the Second Amendment.  I was talking about trying to find a less U.S.-centric title for this article.  I seized on reversing the redirect as one possible solution, only because the two titles involved in the redirect were the topic of consersation before I came along.  Like I said, I'm open to other possibilities. PubliusFL 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And, regarding your statement: "The English Bill of Rights...obviously deals with private possession of arms...". Could you please point to your source for this idea, so I may read it?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My source for the idea is the English Bill of Rights, which says "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence." Self-evidently, this is talking about "the subjects" (those individuals who are subjects of the English Crown) possessing arms, and the purpose of such possession is the defence of said subjects.  For a secondary source, you can start with Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.  He discusses this right as one of the five auxiliary "rights of persons" in the chapter "Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals" of the first book: It is "a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."  In order to protect their primary rights ("of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property"), "subjects of England are entitled . . . lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence."  Perhaps this article should redirect to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the information about the English right to have arms belongs in Self-defense (theory)?   PubliusFL 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Thanks, I will read your Blackstone reference.
 * No, clearly the topic 'right to bear arms' is globally notable justifying an article in Wikipedia. It should not redirect to 2A.  And, I think that in modern usage 'bear arms' to lots of people means a right of individual self defense, so coverage of that topic also belongs here.
 * 1) You have not answered my earlier question: Where exactly to you find that phrase 'keep arms'? SaltyBoatr 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't sought out that specific phrase anywhere. I used it as a collection of words meaning keep + arms.  I guess you can call it "original research," to the extent that any collection of words not a direct quote from some other source is an original way of communicating an intended meaning.  I don't have a source for it any more (I assume) you have a source for using "earlier question" to refer to a question you asked at some earlier point in time.  It's just prose.  I think my use of quotation marks in my initial comment was misleading, so I apologize for any confusion. PubliusFL 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackstone Book 1 is a very dense book to read, being in antiquated English. Yet, one point immediately jumps out at me: Which is that he does not use the term 'bear arms' at all in his chapter on the rights of individuals, but does use the term 'bear arms' (in a military sense too), in the chapter on the civil state.  This distinction is interesting relative to the question of 'individual right' versus 'states right'.  Also in Chapter 'Of the King and his title' he writes of a 'law of arms' using the meaning 'war'.  I don't see the term 'keep arms' used at all in the book.  SaltyBoatr 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is quite interesting (about Blackstone's use of "bear arms") -- I never noticed that before. I don't have any particular attachment to the phrase "keep arms."  The best phrase in the English context might be "have arms."  I am just a little bit concerned about labelling the entire subject as "right to bear arms," and then launching right into defining "bear arms" as only meaning military service (indeed, as meaning military service "as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians").  That creates a misleading impression of the scope of the article right off the bat, because that's not what the English or Mexican rights to "have arms" are about.  If the section about the definition of "bear arms" is relevant (for the purposes of this article) to the specific use of that phrase in the Second Amendment, maybe it should be a subsection of the United States section. PubliusFL 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should cover the modern usage of the term 'bear arms' (and it does not do that well right now). I agree that the 'definition of bear arms' section does not yet cover this modern usage.  Frankly, I have been looking for 'most reliable' sources defining the term 'bear arms' to mean firearm use by civilians, and have not found any using that meaning until after about 1840.  I favor expanding that section, as long as we strictly meet WP:V WP:NOR and WP:ATT  I disagree that the meaning of 'bear arms' prior to 1840 is exclusive to the context of the 2A, see the Garry Wills passage about the latin uses of arma, where arms means war, going back for two millenniums. SaltyBoatr 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point that the best solution is to flesh out the definition of "bear arms." When I have some more time I'll see if I can find any good sources on other senses.  Regarding my point about the meaning being exclusive to the context of the 2A, I said "for the purposes of this article."  Of course "arms" have been used to refer to war for thousands of years, but not (so far as I am aware) in the context of a "right to bear arms," which is what this article is about.  Does anything besides the 2A use the phrase "bear arms" in reference to a civil or political right? PubliusFL 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Eighteenth Century? Yes, Blackstone's Book 1, in his chapter on the rights of the civil state.  Also, in the context of the Moriscos of Spain, see .  But basically, 'bear arms' is a antiquated term, which has taken on newer meanings, in the more recent two centuries.  SaltyBoatr 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing from court documents.
Explaining my revert. Per WP:ATT/FAQ examples of primary sources: Historical documents such as..trials. See also, clearly expert skills are necessary to interpret selective quotes from court rulings. I am aware that Yaf calls this quotation a secondary source, in apparent direct conflict of the Wikipedia policy. Further, there is ambiguity conveyed to the reader of the weight of the court authority. The attribution sentence preceding the quotation gives a false impression of weight, indeed, specialist knowledge is required of the reader to distinguish whether the selection from the court document is ratio decidendi or orbit dicta. Depending on which, the weight authority of the quote varies tremendously. I ask for credible attribution, which is it? Then, we must explain to the reader the distinction, necessary to avoid giving a false impression as to weight of authority. In short, selective quotations from primary sources have risks like this, embodied here as a false impression of weight of authority. This would not be a problem if you used a secondary source. I expect if your point is mainstream, a secondary source should be easy to find. SaltyBoatr 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary sources here are the individual state constitutions, which are historical documents that are not even being quoted in this article. Instead, the 5th Circuit is serving as a secondary source here, to interpret the primary sources.  Just because this interpretation is in an historical document from a trial is no reason to discard a valid viewpoint that is de facto a secondary source relative to the primary sources; only an understanding of written English is required to understand what is being said.  Whether it is dicta or ratio decidendi doesn't matter for the case at hand, since whether it is part of the Emerson decision interpretation is not even the question at hand, which is the only reason that dicta or ratio decidendi would enter the picture.   Rather than go with deletion of this material which has been in the article for a long time, and which is cited with a secondary source, I propose we add a Fact tag to indicate that an editor feels that there is a need for a tertiary source for this statement, rather than to delete a perfectly valid and cited secondary source viewpoint.  Taking the argument you propose to its logical conclusion would mean that we could not quote the Bill of Rights or other parts of the US Constitution, since these items are from an historical document that takes special expertise to understand, clearly a reductio ad absurdum argument.  The proposed need for tertiary sources does not make sense to me. That said, I am still willing to insert a Fact tagline to indicate the need for an additional (albeit, tertiary) source, until such time as this is resolved. Yaf 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With the Bill of Rights, there is no risk of confusion to the reader of weight of authority. With a court ruling there is such a risk.  Why not just find a better suitable secondary source?  The problem is not with idea, the problem is with the risk of a false sense of authority for the reader.  There is no dispute that specialized knowledge is required to interpret court documents. Yet, astonishingly, you claim:  Whether it is 'dicta' or 'ratio decidendi' doesn't matter, which seems wildly false.   SaltyBoatr 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't really have a problem with what the appeals court wrote, I see it is acting as a sort of secondary source because it is summarizing history. My problem is with the false implication of weight of authority. I have just rewrote that section, using the facts found in the court document as a 'secondary source', but have removed the illusion of weight of authority. Hopefully, this is a workable compromise. Also, this section about the meaning of 'bear arms' still needs work to describe the evolution of the meaning term in the Twentieth, and indeed the Twenty-first centuries. I welcome help with this. SaltyBoatr 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

explanation of revert
I still have problems with quoting directly from a court document because the reader is at risk getting a false sense of authority. There is risk of confusion between the weight of dicta and ratio decidendi. Indeed the second to last paragraph says exactly the same thing as the reverted paragraph, only with the false sense of authority removed. SaltyBoatr 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The rewording is Original Research, though, as it assumes dates and further information that is not contained in the Emerson case. Besides, quoting the same case obliquely erroneously leads the reader to believe that it was no big deal, which is assuming that it is dicta, which is clearly original research on your part.  It is original research to assume that what the 5th Circuit said is dicta, which is what you have done. On the other hand, it is original research to assume that it is ratio decidendi, too.  Rather than commit original research and assume it to be one of these in particular, it is better simply to state that the 5th Circuit "observed" the information, which is what is contained in the tertiary source that is added to the original second sourced material.  Let the secondary (by your thought, tertiary by my count) source speak here.  There is no issue at all with the cited observation by the court.  As I said before, it doesn't matter whether it is dicta or ratio decidendi, as it becomes original research to assume either one.  Instead, we should leave the "observed" claim as it is referenced and cited. Have removed the OR and restored the cited information.  Yaf 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One question you have not yet answered, is why don't you just find another secondary source, beyond doubt in Wikipedia policy? It should be easy to find. Another you fail to answer, that a reader needs specialized expertise to understand the weight of authority of your quote?  Could you answer these two questions please?  SaltyBoatr 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The www.nraila.org does not appear to meet the standards of WP:ATT as a most credible source, due to their apparent lack of a reliable publication process. Also, directly quoting from court documents is considered to be a use of a primary source, see WP:ATT/FAQ. Please find a credible secondary source. SaltyBoatr 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the only source given.Ultramarine 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the source does not claim truth, it only voices an opinion.Ultramarine 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You gave two sources, 1) the NRA which fails the WP:ATT standards for most credible source, and 2) citing selectively and directly from a court document, which fails WP:ATT/FAQ for being a primary source. I have no problem with the opinion you are trying to insert in the article, I am just asking that you provide citation and attribution using secondary sourcing from a most credible source. SaltyBoatr 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously the NRA should be allowed to voice their opinion. They are a secondary source, citing a primary source. Regarding "most credible source", there is no policy limiting Wikipedia to peer-revewed articles.Ultramarine 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The NRA can have an opinion, but not in the encyclopedia, without being properly attributed per WP:V and WP:ATT. Again, I don't have a problem including the idea about their definition, I am just asking that proper attribution be given using secondary sourcing of most credible sources. The NRA is a secondary source, so is my brother-in-law. The issue is whether they are a most reliable secondary source, and clearly they are not. Please re-read WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were propersly attributed and are a secondary source in themselves since they quote primary sources. The NRA is clearly a notable view regarding gun politics, your brother-in-law is not.Ultramarine 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about politics. Even if it were, please re-read WP:ATT, "most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses."  Again, I do not have a problem with the NRA's ideas, I just insist that you provide 'most reliable sourcing' for your edits.  SaltyBoatr 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material, primary sources can be used when only "descriptive claims" are made. Clearly, anyone can verify that state constitutions do state what the primary source claims.  Hence, the primary source is permitted, as no specialist knowledge is required.  Have reverted to the primary source version. Yaf 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be no doubt that reading a court document takes specialized knowledge. The reality is that your edit creates a false sense of authority of the court, and does much more than simply quote old state constitutions.  The reader needs to know the difference between the weight of dicta and ratio decidendi to properly interpret your edit.  And, of course, if your idea is truly notable, a secondary source should be easy to find.  SaltyBoatr 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a secondary source here, in the form of the 5th Circuit. There is even a tertiary source, the NRA website.  This is properly cited content that is definitely mainstream and that deserves to remain in the article.  Have reverted to the properly cited version. Yaf 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just re-checked WP:ATT/FAQ and WP:ATT and could not confirm your claim that this is 'properly cited'. Please explain the authority which makes this 'proper' as I cannot find such in Wikipedia standards and policy. SaltyBoatr 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. The specific details are as follows:  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material ,
 * "'Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is a primary source. Parts of the Bible are primary sources. The White House's summary of a George Bush speech is a primary source. Publicly available databases, such as citation indexes and census surveys, are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.Examples of primary sources include: ... trials, ... .'"
 * From your interpretation of primary sources, a trial cannot be usually be used, as it is a primary source. However, for the issue at hand, there are two extenuating circumstances.  First, although a trial is an example of a primary source, in this case, it is serving as an example of a secondary source, instead, since it summarizes the content of the state constitutions, which are the actual primary sources for the information under discussion.  Secondarily, the information is a descriptive claim that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge which is a permitted use of a primary source, even if the 5th Circuit's observation is taken as a primary source, although it is actually a secondary source relative to the primary source of the state constitutions.  For these two reasons, this is a properly cited set of observations.  Thirdly, there is a tertiary source, in the form of the NRA website, which makes the case that the quotation was "observed" by the 5th Circuit.  With 3 valid reasons in accordance with WP:ATT, the information should stay in the article as cited at present.  Yaf 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yaf, this is getting circular. Specialized knowledge is required to read court documents, see above, even when the court document can be seen as a secondary source. And, the NRA website is obviously not a 'most reliable source' due to an unclear publication process. Please, just compromise with me and find a 'most reliable source' for this idea you want in the article. Again, I don't object to your idea which you want included in the article, I just do not see that you have provided proper attribution. The burden to provide attribution is on you, and you are asking to bend the rules. Bottom line: Editors have the right per WP:ATT to remove material not properly attributed. Editors wanting to put the material in have the burden to prove attribution, and you have not. There is a simple solution here, just find and use a 'most reliable source'. And, if you do, I agree to let you leave the material in the article. SaltyBoatr 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to agree with Yaf here on a few points. First, the primary versus secondary issue.  Whether a source is primary or secondary (or tertiary) often depends on its relationship to the article in which the source is being used.  When it comes to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica itself could be a primary source (rather than a tertiary source, which it would normally be classified as).  ATT/FAQ does not say that appellate court opinions are primary sources.  It says that "transcripts" of "trials" are primary sources.  Why?  Because a transcript of a trial is usually used as a source for information about the trial itself.  But an appellate opinion is a secondary source in relation to the law (primary source) which the appellate court is analyzing.  I believe this is consistent with recent discussion on the ATT/FAQ talk page.  Second, the "most reliable source" issue.  WP:RS is called "Reliable Sources," not "Most Reliable Sources."  The examples of "most reliable sources" you keep quoting are just that - examples of the kinds of sources that should be preferred when available.  But the definition of "reliable source" is broader than that snippet.  If information is clearly attributed to a reliable source, I don't think it's appropriate to unilaterally remove that information just because the source isn't of the very highest quality, unless you're replacing it with equivalent information from a better source.  Third, the specialized knowledge issue.  It is not at all clear to me that reading a court opinion requires more specialized knowledge than reading a law review article, and law review articles do fall squarely into the category of "most reliable sources."  Indeed, in my experience the writing of professors in academic journals can be a lot more obscure than the writing of judges in court opinions. PubliusFL 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Yaf here on a few points. Yet, there remains two points I disagree, and one I do not understand.
 * Specialized knowledge is required to interpret court documents, regardless whether or not the court document is making a 'secondary' analysis of earlier primary documents. I am astonished that this point even needs to be argued, it is plainly obvious.  See my explanation above.
 * No, the website of the National Rifle Association is not a reliable source. Especially per WP:ATT and even per WP:RS, the issue is the 'reliable publication process', and obviously this website does not meet Wikipedia standards in that regard.
 * And, I have not yet heard a reason why Yaf does not take the simple, no conflict, route around this impasse. Simply find a better source, beyond dispute.  If his idea is so notable, a 'most reliable source' should be easy to find.

Until these three items are resolved, or until Yaf finds another source, editors are allowed to challenge and remove all text which is poorly sourced per the policy of WP:ATT. Indeed, removed at their discretion (and not only 'when available'), editors are also allowed hold a 'most reliable source' standard. Though, in this case the sourcing meets neither a 'reliable source' or a 'most reliable source' standard. SaltyBoatr 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr is misrepresenting policy. Soures are not limited to those listed as "most reliable sources". To quote from WP:RS "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." Nor or sources limited to scholary material "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable." Explicitly from the Examples page "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."Ultramarine 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim that sources are limited to only the 'most reliable sources', only that it is much preferred. And, I do assert that editors are allowed to remove poorly sourced edits. Bear in mind, our mutual goal is to create a credible encyclopedia, and using best quality sourcing is vital to that goal. SaltyBoatr 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So why did you delete the sourced material that has been added to the article? Ultramarine 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As have explained in detail above and summarized here: 1) The selective quote from the court document requires specialized knowledge for the reader to understand the weight and context, 2) The NRA website lacks a reliable publication process and therefore is not a reliable source 3) And, a better source should be easy to find and use.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do strongly agree and believe that the article needs to cover the reality that the definition of 'bear arms' has a meaning including arms for self defense. And, that the article fails in this regard now. Indeed when I tried to include that 'self defense' definition earlier I was reverted.

I want to include a 'self defense' definition, but I insist that the sourcing be of high quality, (and because it should be easy to find), preferably scholarly. SaltyBoatr 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your exclusion of the view of NRA is unexplained. Regarding reliability of source and publication process, as a big and powerful organization, it is safe to assume that many people, including lawyers, check their legal claims. It not a personal website or vanity press by a single individual. As per policy in my last comment, just being a special interest organization is not a reason for exclusion, one can cite them as a source regarding their viewpoint.Ultramarine 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The text I reverted was not actually phrased as regarding an NRA viewpoint. The text actually was phrased in a way that gave a misleading impression as to the weight of the court opinion, and only readers with specialized knowledge could understand the actual weight of the obiter dictum commentary. I attempted to fix this problem but was reverted. Still, I think that it would be better for you to simply find another more reliable source regarding the 'self defense' defintion of 'bear arms', it should be easy to do. SaltyBoatr 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, here are some examples of your reverts of text clearly stated as describing the viewpoint of the NRA: . Also note the reference to a non-existant "most reliable source" policy.Ultramarine 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Regardless, in those two instances, I still have the second problem that 'specialized knowledge' is required by the reader to understand the weight of the obiter dictum commentary. And once again, I still hold that something as important this: the 'self defense' definition of 'bear arms', deserves and should be easy to source with excellent scholarly attribution, not just 'this is the opinion of a notable fringe lobbying group'. The 'most reliable source' standard for Wikipedia is hardly 'non-existent', it is found here in third sentence of this paragraph WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, sources are not limited to those listed there. Regarding "specialized knowledge", who are we to judge what people understand? It could equally well be argued that much scholarly material is dense, uses complicated language, and requires "specialized knowledge" and should therefore not be allowed. Importantly, notable arguments and viewpoints should be included. If the argument or viewpont is wrong, then Wikipedia should explain why.Ultramarine 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've found a better source - Don Kates in the Michigan Law Review. So why do you quote his point indirectly, as described by an opponent?  That makes the article look awfully POV.  Also, Ultramarine is right when he says there is no "'most reliable source' policy" (not "standard").  WP:ATT is not a policy, or even a guideline.  The actual guideline is WP:RS, which says that "in general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."  So availability is a factor.  Until something better is put on the table, you use what you have. Reliable Sources/Examples, regarding law-related articles, says "when discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper articles."  A federal appeals court panel consists of "appropriately qualified jurists." PubliusFL 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Availability is a factor. I agree, but I don't accept the implication that therefore 'fringe' websites are the best source that is available.  We should not be too lazy to go the the library and read some books, there are plenty of available 'most reliable' books.  I have ordered a few books on this subject through interlibrary loan, which should arrive shortly and volunteer to do the work reading real books on this subject.  SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't found access to the Michigan Law Review, and in the mean time, the secondary quote is certainly accurate. SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You characterize my recent edit dismissively: 'as described by an opponent'. A more neutral and accurate description would be 'as described by a Pulitzer prize winning historian'.  SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge a difference between Wikipedia standards and Wikipedia policy. My point is that using a fringe website as a source meets neither.  SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not discussing legal text, so your point is moot. SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us face reality, for several days we have argued 'I am right, you are wrong' versus 'I am right, you are wrong'.  Getting no where.  The solution (I hoped) is to find a better quality source that makes the point you want to make.  Apparently, you cannot, or will not do this.  A second option  is to revise your wording to compromise our way out of this impasse.
 * The central theme of the NRA's selective quote from the Emerson Court case, which is that 'bear arms' was not exclusively used to mean 'military service' in the late 18th Century. The Emerson court does not dispute that 'bear arms' predominately meant 'military service'.  The Emerson court only points out a few exceptions to the predominate meaning.  No one, of which I am aware, disputes that the predominate meaning in the late 18th Century was 'military service'.  The article only describes predominate meaning, and Emerson agrees.  What is the problem?  SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem is that the NRA's wording describing the Emerson court case is cleverly ambiguous, obscuring the significance of the context of orbiter dictum commentary, creating an illusion of authority of the court. I could imagine compromise wording that fixed this problem.  But frankly, the existing article conflicts with the Emerson court ruling in no way what-so-ever.  SaltyBoatr 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 5th Circuit's observation is indeed a reliable source. Have restored the properly cited and framed quotation, even providing a tertiary source in the form of the NRA's observation of the same information. Please do no make up Wikipedia policy to state that we must use a "most reliable source"; the actual policy is just to use a reliable source.  That policy has been met; as a compromise, I have even used the NRA's observation of the same information, as a tertiary source, although you insist on calling it a secondary source.  Whatever, ... the point is that we have 2 reliable sources that are verifiable.  That is all that is required here. Yaf 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite my asking perhaps a dozen times, you have not fixed the problem of specialized knowledge being required to understand the direct reading of selective quotes from the court document. There is a real risk of readers not understanding the weight of the orbiter dictum commentary. I ask you to work with me to find a mutually acceptable compromise, yet you once again simply reverted your problematic text back into the article, with no attempt to compromise. Also, you continually avoid my concerns about the reliability of your using a fringe website as part of your attribution. Better quality sourcing certainly is available to make your point.

We need to do a better job communicating with each other. We should try to answer each others questions, and you have repeatedly ignored my repeated questions. Please take the time to answer.

You demonstrated a repeated refusal to compromise, but I am willing to keep trying. To this end, I have taken the message from the Emerson court commentary, and reworded it trying to fix the problems and put your material into the article, trying to keep the message true and unchanged while removing the risk of misunderstanding that results from the risk of confusion about the orbiter dictum. You may have missed this when you reverted your text unchanged yet again today. In an extra effort to satisfy you, I put your material in the very first paragraph to be sure that readers get a full chance to learn the point you are trying to make. I hope you acknowledge that I am trying compromise with you over this, and avoid yet again, your rigid revert process. Please, there must be some middle compromise wording we can both find acceptable. SaltyBoatr 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we have a dialog about this, and avoid unexplained reverts? Please?  SaltyBoatr 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Have restored the properly cited materiel with a verifiable and reliable set of two sources. The summary that has been added is good, but it does not give proper weight to the importance of the observation by the 5th Circuit. There are significant examples of early usages of "bear arms" for other than for military service, and this observation needs to stay to balance the article section on definitions. Otherwise, it appears that there were no usages of bear arms other than military service until the 20th Century, which is wrong, and and conveys an improper viewpoint to a reader. Yaf 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for beginning to engage with me to work out our differences. I still feel your choice to  use the NRA website as a source as being 'proper' is unfounded in Wikipedia standards or policy.  You should justify yourself citing Wikipedia policy and standards that a website is a 'proper' source.  Otherwise, I am allowed per Wikipedia policy to remove the material.


 * Also, you must justify by citing credible secondary sources your 'proper weight to the importance of the observations by the 5th Circuit'. As it stands, it appears as original research.  Your response is needed, or I authorize by Wikipedia policy to remove the material.


 * And further, I am willing to engage a neutral third party to resolve this dispute that we have been unable to resolve so far. Are you willing to seek help resolving our dispute?  SaltyBoatr 21:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I regret that I see no reply. We still do need to work out these differences, and I would welcome your dialog and am sure that a mutually acceptable compromise is possible.  SaltyBoatr 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)