Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 13

Introduction revision
The recent revision to the introduction served to improve the "Heller centric" problem in the article, thanks. Though it did not really address the problem with the introduction. In short, I think that Wikipedia policy is that the introduction should be a concise summary of the major issues covered in the article. Presently, the introduction does not do this, but rather it tries to make a statement about what the 2A is today. In broad terms the article includes these four major categories:
 * 1) The precedences that lead up to the creating of the 2A.
 * 2) The actual creation and adoption of the 2A.
 * 3) The history of case law about the 2A
 * 4) The history of legislation related to firearms.

I suggest that we scrap the present introduction, write four neutral paragraphs covering each of these four major issues, and use that as the introduction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have identified a problem with the article, not the lead. The article is about the second amendment, but the topics you list exclude the amendment's definition, i.e., what the amendment actually is. The current lead does that (in a manner nearly identical to other BoR articles), and also succinctly addresses/summarizes the article topics you list, except perhaps legislation. And some recent changes to the lead are appalling... not even complete sentences. The first paragraph of the lead is good, and the rest of the lead only needed some tweaks, at least until some more recent changes to the later paragraphs. --tc2011 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a short intro then the current first paragraph covers the major points. The 4th paragraph of the intro currently looks a mess. I hope that is not a final edit and that someone is working on it.

I would personally like to see the fact that while the power and obligation of arming the militia was transferred to the feds in the Constitution, as compared to the Articles of Confederation where that power was retained by the states, that the Second Amendment limited the power transferred to NOT include the power to DISARM the militia.

The article currently includes the fact that the Second Amendment was a COMPROMISE to satisfy the concerns of the anti-Federalists, but not what the compromise was. The compromise clearly was to FORBID any exercise of the power to disarm.4.154.238.146 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

after rereading the first paragraph of the intro I see some issues

the phrase "keep and bear arms" is listed as a right when it is in fact 2 rights.

The right to keep arms for individual self defense and the right to bear arms in defense of the individual states or in defense of the US.

Please be aware that under the US Constitution the states retained the right to wage DEFENSIVE war and the states do not need a declaration of war from Congress to do so.

The following is too wordy, does not match text of footnote, and just does not read well.

''since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents. ''

Something like the following reads better and is true for both Federalists and anti-Federalists. Founding Fathers therefore fits.

The Founding Fathers believed that disarming the citizenry in combination with the establishment of a standing army, allowed would be tyrants to use that army to gain and keep power without effective resistance.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On above, I have to admit that while I believe it refers to two rights the text of the second amendment does say right and not rights.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the intro put in by TC2011 has several POV push problems:


 * Before District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court had only addressed the amendment in limited or ambiguous terms[5] and because the amendment contains a prefatory clause, which refers to a "well regulated militia,"[6][7] there was disagreement as to whether it protected a collective or individual right.


 * 1) "only addressed in limited or ambiguous terms" bluntly implies that Heller is not ambiguous or limited. WP:SYN
 * 2) The use of the Linda Greenwood piece as a footnote misinterprets her article, the question of "individual right" is only one aspect of the Second Amendment, not the whole enchilada as the pro-gun POV would have us believe. Indeed, other aspects of the 2A have been ruled on at least five times by the SCOTUS, and these should not be suppressed.
 * 3) The link to "prefatory" points to preamble, which is but one of the POV's about the "well regulated militia" grammar, the Latin ablative absolute grammar hypothesis is improperly suppressed.
 * 4) "collective or individual", shouldn't this be collective and/or individual?
 * 5) Additionally, the term "individual right" has the ambiguity problem in that it is both a legal concept and also a pro-gun slogan with separate meanings. We must parse this ambiguity.

I took another look at the introduction, and it appears to be even more confusing, poorly written and focused on irrelvancies than it was a month ago. While the discussion of the grammar of the 2nd ammendment is quite relevant and should be included in the article, for this discussion to comprise 90% of the first three paragraphs seems absurd. Moreover, the abstract nature of the prose means that that a casual visitor to this article will have no comprehension of what the two conflicting interpretations are unless they do a lot of other reading. This grammar discussion should be moved later in the article, and it should be rewritten so that a layperson can understand it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. Have moved the grammar discussion to later in the article.  As for rewording for lay people, this still need to be done.  Yaf (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

making change to second paragraph of intro from

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban and identified rights of personal self defense based on the Second Amendment.

to

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban as contrary to the individual right of personal self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

the right is not BASED on the Amendment. It is PROTECTED by the Amendment.

Under the US system of government all power is derived from the people. The government does NOT grant us any rights, it can ONLY PROTECT those rights.

I further ask that the quotes of the Founding Fathers be reinstated into the article. Their original words were a plus and not a minus. Removing them is detrimental to the article.4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Change the above to I TRIED to make a edit but found the article locked. I ask that a registered wiki editor make the change mentioned above4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the lede has been improved, but is still a little sloppy. Certainly the characterization of Heller is now more NPOV. I don't think using the word "protected" instead of "based" would be a problem - That change could be made. The last sentence of the lede appears unsourced and is possibly unnecessary. I'm not familiar enough with the case to offer a fair opinion on whether Cruikshank belongs in the lede. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The last sentence is well sourced and is necessary to keep clear the distinction of political agenda of unlimited rights versus limited rights provided for in Heller and prior case precedence. See this article in Legal Times.  Indeed the only effect of Heller is the one gun ban law overturned.  DC residents have a right to unlocked pistols inside their houses, but it remains illegal to purchase a handgun in DC except from a licensed gun dealer (and presently there are none) and it is illegal to import a handgun in DC except through a licensed gun dealer, (and presently there are none).  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The "only" effect??? I think stating that the right to own a firearm for self-defense is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT does not qualify as an "ONLY". Under US law an attempt to deprive you of your Constitutionally protected rights, or any rights protected by law for that matter, is considered CRIMINAL CONDUCT. Using Heller as case law, anyone deprived of that right can sue, with good chance of success, any government agency attempting to so deprive. Notice the number of legal cases that have sprung up due to Heller. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Cruikshank mention in the introduction deserves weight because the question of Incorporation on the states is a huge issue relevant to this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To Counteract Salty Boatrs attempts to minimize Heller- some language from the case

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

Notice that DC MUST register his handgun and MUST issue a license to carry. Per above Supreme Court language, A failure to do so would be violation of his constitutionally protected rights. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An intro should summarize the article.

Currently three quarters of the intro reads anti Second Amendment. That is most certainly POV bias and a distortion of the article. An article about a protected right should naturally be PRO that right - not neutral and certainly not about arguments contrary to that right.

Where is the BASIC fact that the Second Amendment was created as a guard against a power grab by a would be tyrant, who could easily seize and keep power through an army beholding to him (as paymaster) after the citizenry (militia to you purists) was disarmed on one pretext or another.

Looks like you guys are getting blackmailed by Salty Boatr and his ilk. Whats worse, you have given in.4.156.78.208 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not given in, but I am outnumbered. I can't impose my will. So I maintain the article as best I can, without edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion: "you have given in" => "I am outnumbered...I will maintain as best I can" is proof of the long term pro-gun systemic bias trouble of this article. These two editors are discussing their agenda of personal pro-gun POV push in this article. Instead, the agenda should be to read the reliable sourcing, and then write an article that matches the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have misinterpreted my words. All I meant was that I am trying to have the article appear as I would like it to appear, while also trying to reach a consensus. Are you not doing the same? My reference to being "outnumbered" was in response to the anon's claim that I had "given in" to you and other editors. Try reading my comments with AGF in mind. SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have misinterpreted you. I recall your similar effort to collude with Yaf to push a POV on November 14th. Explain what "anti Second Amendment" means? That editors like you two communicate about fixing "anti Second Amendment" wording reveals volumes about your faith. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You really have to stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. Wikipedia editors are suppose to reach "consensus"; that means we have to work together. Sadly, you see such cooperation as collusion. Please remember AGF. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disclose exactly what you wrote on November 14th. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Does my speaking with Yaf violate any Wikipedia policy? Why don't you focus on improving the article instead of making accusations? SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my questions. Answering yours, yes WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So you believe my speaking with Yaf is a violation of Wikipedia policy. As I said earlier, editors are supposed to work together in order to reach consensus. My speaking with Yaf not only was not a violation of any policy, it's what Wikipedia desires (editors speaking to each other). SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the actual act of speaking. It is the act of speaking to conspire to push a pro-gun POV that violates WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors are supposed to speak to one another regarding the content of articles. It's called reasonable consensus building, not conspiracy or collusion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro continues to be dominated by exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms. I consider this POV bias and will continue to say so. Once the article is unprotected I will delete anti-gun rhetoric there. 4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided neutral wording for the Introduction's reference to incorporation. It now does not refer to incorporation being "likely" or claim that Heller "reaffirmed" anti-incorporation decisions. SMP0328. (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro is now even more POV biased in favor of EXCEPTIONS to the rights protected then to a description of the rights themselves. No mention is made as to why the right deserved protection. While detailing exceptions certainly has to be included this detailing doen not belong in the intro.

Placing a secondary issue (exceptions to the right protected) in front of the rights themsleves show blatant POV bias. If people consider those exceptions so important, they should create another article for those exceptions. Hijacking this one is not acceptable.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Concealed Carry theory
Yaf replied: "There is no original research concerning "concealed carry" theory in the article. Rather, the meaning of the Second Amendment that occurred in state jurisprudence evolved over time, and this history is important for understanding the history of the interpretation of the 2A. Yes, in Bliss, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and even the former Attorney General of the United States did both arrive at the conclusion that the 2A protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms even if the arms were kept and borne as concealed carry arms. However, as the article also points out, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1897 to clear up this misconception that regulating concealed carry did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again, the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights; it only discusses the change of interpretation that evolved over time. This second point is a non-issue."


 * We are to just accept Yaf at his word? "There is no original research...".  Yet, on Jan 9th Yaf admitted the source for this idea was from unpublished research.  And Yaf asserts "the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights".  Yet, a Google search shows many of concealed carry advocacy blogs and websites that echo Yaf's line of thought.  Yaf's credibility is paper thin, and we need more than his loud assurances when the evidence is contrary.   The reasonable conclusion is that the "Bliss v. Commonwealth" emphasis gives the article a heavy POV tilt, contributing in a strong way to the POV undue balance problem with the article.  Worse, the one reliable sourced cite from William Weir that disagreed with Yaf's POV that Kentucky law was "violative" was scrubbed from the article.   This remains a POV weighting problem.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The source for this idea is not from unpublished research. The source for these ideas is from cited references and the pointer to these references is from unpublished research, differing not a whit from talk page comments that you regularly make regarding U&M, Spitzer, etc.., which likewise have resulted in content being added to this article.  And, this is not Original Research, but only collaboration in improving the article amongst editors, both real and virtual.  Evaluate the cites, not the number of steps one takes to walk to the library to read such cites.  This remains a "POV weighting problem" only in the mind of one POV warrior who still attempts to remove all individual right content from this article.  Rather than focusing on censorship of all content that doesn't support the monomaniacal position that only the collective right to bear arms in a select militia is the true meaning of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States (Scalia in particular) just "got it wrong", why don't we focus on improving the article and including all major points of view with properly cited neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources?  Wikipedia is not censored. Claiming a POV weighting problem just because this article is not censored to support only The SaltyBoatr View of the World is nonsense. Yaf (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the personal attacks please. I was asked to be specific about the POV problems with the article.  This problem is one of many.  Undue emphasis on material sympathetic for the concealed carry political theory causes POV balance problems in the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

more re the infamous footnote 67
i'm becoming troubled by infamous footnote 67. i have no question that the quote from it is being rendered accurately, and on that basis i have no qualms with it. it's clearly a reliable source in all respects. what bothers me most has to do with the apparent lack of any other corroborating cites. i've googled high and low (and acknowledging that lack of google results is not an acceptable basis for determining availability) this quote appears to be the only specific quote from a reliable source that suggests bliss v commonwealth had any relationship to the second amendment. buzzard is non-problematic, as the text of the court's decision clearly discusses that decision relative to the second amendment. but bliss is a problem, and i have to say i'm beginning to lean toward's sb's concern per 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (or however it's been worded). are there any other citations from any other reliable sources that suggest that bliss specifically was related to, discussed, or was concerned with, the second amendment? anyone? bueller? Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was first pointed to this obscure reference by a rather prominent researcher, in a private e-mail several years ago. I subsequently looked up the original, and found it in hard copy form at a Federal records repository.  I then searched, based on the wording in the hard copy format, and the present courtesy link popped out.  But, I would not have found it in electronic snippet form without having read it in the original hard copy version, first.  And, I wouldn't have found it in the hard copy version without the original pointer in the earlier e-mail (thanks, if you are reading this note!).  Unfortunately, all I have besides this one reliable and verifiable source are unpublished e-mail notes, which are not acceptable as valid sources.  But, the lack of sources was explicitly because it was a common interpretation that was universal for many decades in the 19th Century.  Buzzard was notable solely because it was the sole collective right interpretation in the 19th Century.  The odd is always discussed, whereas "facts that everyone knows" are never discussed.  Unfortunately, that means a minimalistic set of reliable sources for interpretations of Bliss.  Yaf (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf has confessed to original research here. His anonymous "prominent researcher" is his source for this idea.  The idea is unpublished.  Yaf is trying to replicate that research using interpretation of extremely rare and obscure documents.  If this extreme and obscure idea is to meet Wikipedia policy, it should be found in multiple reliable sources per WP:REDFLAG.  Yaf has failed to comply.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bumping this. Yaf needs to comply with WP:REDFLAG and has not.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to do anything,here, because there is no original research problem or WP:REDFLAG issue here. There are already multiple sources making the same claim already contained in the article.  Namely, the Bliss violative of the Second Amendment footnote in question, as well as the subsequent paragraph with details on former US Attorney General John Crittenden's Mattews Ward case, as documented/cited by Saul Cornell's book, establishing the interpretation of a constitutional right to arms contained in the Bill of Rights, and in the Second Amendment in particular, as being used in the Bliss defense.  Multiple sources hence indicate the same thing.  Besides, if there was not a question about concealed carry regulations being a potential violation of the 2A, there would not have been the SCOTUS case to decide it in 1897, now, would there?   There is no issue here. Yaf (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Double talk and smoke. Multiple editors see footnote 67 as lacking corroboration, and Yaf has not complied with WP:REDFLAG.  Even Yaf wrote there is "a minimalistic set of reliable sources". At 04:44, 9 January 2009 see above, Yaf confessed to original research with this Bliss passage.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally false. There is no Original Research problem here. There is only severe POV pushing and more personal attacks by SaltyBoatr evident here.  Yaf (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to see this source disproven, but since the demands of WP:Burden are met, the citation should stand until someone presents actual evidence that it should not. --tc2011 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that a state law court case was won due to the federal second amendment is "extraordinary" considering that the overwhelming consensus, truly unanimous, is that historically and presently: The federal second amendment does not apply to state law. There is plenty of speculation that it may do so in the future, but presently and historically, it does not.  Footnote 67 is insufficient, there simply must be other coverage of something as notable as this to be found in the reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i have to conditionally agree with sb. i disagree with the characterization above - the citation characterizes bliss merely as 'violative of the second amendment', not that bliss was 'won due to' the 2nd amendment or any such broader scope. however, a single quote extant that conflates bliss with violation of the 2nd amendment, with no other sources that make the same comparison/claim/argument/statement/characterization/whatever, becomes an extraordinary claim, with a stricter burden of proof applied per WP:REDFLAG. While saying that, i also acknowledge that coverage in reliable sources of Bliss v Commonwealth is not exactly the richest vein to try to mine in the first place. But without even a single other mention of Bliss being a case 'violative of the second amendment' from any other source but this single brief mention in testimony to congress in 1967, smacks more of the person quoted having misspoken in his/her testimony, than to the general agreement within any community that Bliss indeed was violative of the 2nd amendment.
 * i need take pains to reiterate that i have no objection to the coverage of state court discussion in this regard, as i do believe it's relevant to a fuller understanding of the topic. this one specific citation however is problematic. stanford university ostensibly has a copy of the proceedings, and i may be in the south bay area soon, so if i have time i'm going to try and have a look at it myself. it's apparently on microfiche. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The publication in question is available, if not in holding, by inter-library loan at any and all of these libraries. The reference librarian at my local library indicates she can get a copy within 4 to 6 weeks, and I have entered my request for the publication. If someone can come up with evidence directly confirming or refuting the citation before then, I will enthusiastically welcome whatever conclusion the evidence warrants. But until then, since the citation has satisfied WP:Burden, it should remain in the article. --tc2011 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even so, the mention of the "Bliss" case seems just barely tangential to the topic of this article at best, and probably should be trimmed per WP:ROC. Not to mention, the entire passage is replicated nearly verbatim elsewhere in Wikipedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk)


 * Giving this a bump. The passage cited to "footnote 67" needs both 1) independent reliable confirmation  and 2) demonstration of relevance, or should be trimmed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It happens to be the first interpretation of the Second Amendment, and an interpretation that is maintained to this day in two of the 50 states. (Two states require no Concealed Carry permits to this day, having taken the original interpretation of the Second Amendment that Kentucky took, that regulating concealed carry is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that the 2A protects against.  The SCOTUS, however, later ruled that regulating concealed carry was not an infringement of the 2A. --This is already in the article.-- Despite this subsequent SCOTUS ruling, two states have kept their original interpretation of the 2A, however, to the present day.  This early interpretation is therefore an important point of historical significance, especially as it came before the collective right interpretation that didn't get really going until the 20th Century.)  All major points of view need to be included in this article.  Especially this first point of view that was nearly universal for nearly half a century.  Re-writing history, through censoring historical facts, is not a road we should trod in writing an historical commentary on the 2A. Yaf (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Pushing one point of view about concealed carry legal theory.  Never mind that Heller ruled resoundingly that regulations like prohibitions on concealed weapons are entirely allowable per the Second Amendment.  The issue that some states have laws otherwise is totally off topic in this 2A article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"this quote appears to be the only specific quote from a reliable source that suggests bliss v commonwealth had any relationship to the second amendment."

See Heller v. DC, footnote 9, and the text the footnote refers to. Eaglecloud (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly, Heller footnote 9 describes Bliss as "interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.", not as "violative of the Second Amendment". The topic of this article is not state constitutional provisions, therefore discussion of a Kentucky court case is off topic.  (Unless, of course, you want to advance the political theory of concealed carry law, which is also off topic.)  Footnote 67 raises a redflag policy violation by claiming to be violative of the Second Amendment.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not exactly. Bliss is cited as evidence "equating [the] Second Amendment with" similar state provisions. Eaglecloud (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 - Originalism
Yaf asserts: "The claim that the wording of the 2A is itself proof of "originalism and textualism" is bogus. It is simply statement of historical fact. Quoting the 2A is not excessive reliance of a "theory of originalism and textualism", but simply quotes the Amendment's wording, much like every other article on US Constitution amendments. The article clearly states that regulation of concealed firearms is not a violation of the the 2A. The text of the 2A is, itself, not "pro-gun". This point is a non-issue."


 * I accept Yaf's point of view that originalism is the correct "historical fact" way to interpret the Second Amendment. Yaf's rebuttal, relying on name calling, lacks evidence and logic. My concern is that with the excessive dwelling on the spare text of the amendment (it is quoted three times in the first dozen lines) originalism implicitly is given undue emphasis.  The evolving constitution, living constitution, theory of 2A interpretation is not found anywhere in the article, but it is commonly described in reliable sourcing, like National Review, see and elsewhere.  I see that this theory is absent in the pro-gun editorial press, and Justice Scalia is a well known opponent of this theory, so it is no surprise it is missing from the ruling he drafted.  That said, it is a mainstream credible reliable POV and it should be given due weight in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "living constitution" argument only applies to rulings ON Constitutional language. Any ruling blatantly at odds with clearly worded Constitutional language is in fact perjury of the oath of office by a judge. In case people are unaware of the fact, perjury is a felony.4.154.254.139 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "bear arms", versus "bear" "arms"
A ninth POV problem with the article is that reliable sourcing shows two points of view. One, that bear arms means "carry firearms". Two, that "bear arms" means "do military service" (See Garry Wills and many other reliable sources). The article tone is worded with a non-neutral the premise throughout that bear arms is synonymous with "carry firearms". The second point of view, that "bear arms" means "do military service" is entirely missing from the article. The non-neutral tone of the wording, and the absence of the second definition are WP:UNDUE policy violations. I accept that both of these points of view are valid. I object that one is given undue weight over the other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This content was formerly contained in this article, but was removed when you did the POV fork and moved this content to the Right to keep and bear arms article. Are you now proposing that it be restored here, as well?  Or are you implying that this POV forked article should be unforked, and returned here?  Or what?  Yaf (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The premise of Yafs questions are faulty, therefore Yafs questions are non sequitur.  A Right to bear arms article is needed (and used to exist) to provide coverage of various rights to bear arms in other jurisdictions than the US Federal.  Yaf, not me, is the one who did the POV forking see edit history at  19:37 on 6 May 2008 with the page move of Right to bear arms to Right to arms which was redirected to USA centric Right to keep and bear arms.   The record of this matter shows Yafs coy questions to be diversions.


 * That diversion aside. "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article.  This causes a POV balance problem.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No diversion. SaltyBoatr created this other page, in a POV fork from this very article. The subsequent re-naming is a separate issue. Again, SaltyBoatr, focus please, are you now proposing that it be restored here, as well? Or are you implying that this POV forked article should be unforked, and returned here? Or what? Yaf (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the third time: "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article.  This causes a POV balance problem.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And, this "missing meaning content" was formerly contained in this very article, but you previously removed it to create the POV fork article now called Right to keep and bear arms when you removed all individual right content that formerly was contained in this article. (There was a civilian meaning of the phrase "to bear arms" that was also included once there was a military meaning of "to bear arms" being discussed, to avoid another POV imbalance problem.)  Are you now proposing that the article Right to keep and bear arms be folded back into this article/merged with this article, or are you proposing that this content on Wikipedia (2 sections, really, of the Right to keep and bear arms article) be duplicated in both articles, or are you just complaining?  It is starting to look like you are just complaining perpetually, with no intent to solve a non-existent "POV problem" with this article, by not responding to a simple question.  There is a separate issue with parsing the Second Amendment clause "right to keep and bear arms" to only see "bear arms" and not to see "to keep and" before it.  This is a separate issue regarding "keep and bear arms".  I hardly see how one can "keep" a militia in one's possession.  Taken to the logical conclusion, we would also have to follow your lead in parsing the meaning of "bear arms" too, as in The Right to Arm Bears, to avoid all "POV balance problem(s)".  Such would be nonsense.  Just what are you saying?  It is not clear.  Yaf (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf's recollection is incorrect as is Yaf's assertion of POV fork. Regardless.  I was asked to be specific about the POV problems with thisarticle.  One important problem, (of many) is that:  "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article..  Also, notice that Yaf is arguing that his point of view is more  logical.  I am not asking Yaf to agree that the opposing point of view is logical.  Instead the question is:  Does the opposing point of view exist in reliable sourcing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the phrase, in this amendment, is "to keep and bear arms". are you suggesting that inclusion of the alternative meaning of 'arms' as human appendages must be included? because that's essentially what you're arguing - that because part of a phrase has a different meaning, in a different context, it's somehow relevant. the amendment does not say 'the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed'. suggesting that alternate meanings, in hypothetical constructs, must be covered in this article, about this amendment, that uses the phrase "keep and bear arms", is nothing but original research. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See above. The issue is discussed at length in reliable sourcing.  It is discussed in many sources but the coverage in the Garry Wills book ISBN 0684870266, page 257 says it well.  I pointed to a convenience link just above.  Your ceaseless attacks on my good faith are tiresome.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have restored the content previously removed in a POV fork from the article back into the article to attempt to address this "deficiency". Does this restoration fix this problem, or not?  If not, then I will simply remove this content.  It seems a bit wordy to me, although it is POV balanced.  Yaf (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It helps fix the problem #9, thanks very much. Give me a little time to give the article a read through and I will answer.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf's edit fixes problem #9 (again, thank you very much), with the exception of the word "unilateral". As used in that sentence, that word potentially has a double meaning.  In addition to the technical statistical meaning, it also can be mistaken to imply that the "military service" definition is isolated, arbitrary or capricious, which it is not.  The word "unilateral" should be removed or replaced with a less ambiguous word to avoid that risk.  Indeed, the word adds little or no information to the passage that is not already expressed, or that could be expressed just as well using different words.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert
I welcome discussion of my recent edit which Yaf reverted. Yaf? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, please explain your revert.


 * The article sentence cited to footnote 84 is imprecise. The book passage says:  "The individual rights and collective rights theories were products of later struggles in American history. Individual rights theory was born in the Jacksonian era as a response to America's first efforts at gun control. Collective rights theory emerged slowly at the end of Reconstruction and only crystallized in its modern form in the early twentieth century. The one theory absent from current debate over the Second Amendment is the original civic interpretation. The virtual extinction of the conception was not inevitable but was product of a long and complex history. "  The sequential order per the cite is an original civic interpretation followed a generation later by the individual rights theory and followed several generations later by the collective rights theory.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion is needed here. Lacking discussion, I will proceed with the edit.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The text in question is: "Two different models emerged from early state jurisprudence: an individual right and a collective right. Individual rights viewpoints came first, followed by the collective rights viewpoints.[84] According to Saul Cornell, the simplified choices of only two models was an error: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia."[85]"  Saul Cornell alone believes that the civic duty interpretation was the first interpretation.  It is improper to assume that he is the ultimate arbitor of truth on this topic.  On the other hand, multiple sources confirm that the individual interpretation came before the collective interpretation.  The present text is clear on this point, identifying Saul Cornell as the believer in the original civic duty interpretation, while also documenting the two earlier interpretations.  (Clearly, Saul Cornell wasn't alive during either the Jacksonian era or during Reconstruction.)  Yaf (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted.  Further, according you your citation, the individual rights viewpoint was relative to state attempts to legislate gun control laws under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction.   That is off topic in this federal article.  To assert that individual right viewpoint "came first" without discussion of the viewpoint that preceded is consistent with a point of view giving undue emphasis to the "individual rights view" which contributes to the problem with WP:NPOV violation.   To assert that the federal law was incorporated to the state jurisdiction is also wrong per your cited source, a WP:REDFLAG problem, and also is consistent with a "pro-gun" POV contributing to the WP:NPOV weighting problem.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr writes: "According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted." Correct.  Continuing, SaltyBoatr writes, "Further, according you your citation, the individual rights viewpoint was relative to state attempts to legislate gun control laws under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction." Partially correct, except you are ignoring that protections under both state constitutions and under the federal constitution embedded in the Second Amendment were argued successfully during court cases in state courts, per the cites in the article.  This material is thus not off topic in this article.  SaltyBoatr also writes, "To assert that individual right viewpoint "came first" without discussion of the viewpoint that preceded is consistent with a point of view giving undue emphasis to the "individual rights view" which contributes to the problem with WP:NPOV violation.   To assert that the federal law was incorporated to the state jurisdiction is also wrong per your cited source, a WP:REDFLAG problem, and also is consistent with a "pro-gun" POV contributing to the WP:NPOV weighting problem."  Lots of argumentative diatribe, with the typical "pro-gun" attacks and POV pushing.  The article clearly states the two interpretations of the state and federal issues (states' protections for right to keep and bear arms, and federal protections for right to keep and bear arms.)  It also clearly states Cornell's modern interpretation of what he calls the "original civic duty".  This is discussed after the earlier points are discussed.  It is without merit to argue that a modern interpretation of Saul Cornell should be given top billing, and pushed as Original Research, that it is the correct interpretation.  The current text presents the range of opinions without bias, in a neutral point of view.  Please stop the POV pushing for the modern anti-rights opinion of Cornell to be given undue weight. Yaf (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, interestingly, agrees with Saul Cornell when a selective quote from page 7 is convenient to Yafs POV(footnote 84), then denigrates Saul Cornell when a more full quote from page 7 is inconvenient to Yafs POV.  Adding back the full quote from page 7 to footnote 84.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop ascribing motives to editors. It has nothing to do with convenience; rather, it has to do with quote accuracy.  You still have a typo in the added quote from the reference that still needs to be fixed.  My original revert was largely because of the plethora of typos, misquotes, and POV pushes, per the "poorly worded" comment, on the revert, not because of "convenience".  Wikipedia has standards for accuracy.  Please correct the quote you added.  Yaf (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf wrote: "SaltyBoatr writes: "According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted." Correct. " So, that is agreement about "several decades after" I have clarified that wording based on that agreement.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the typo in the quote that still remained unfixed. Please check quotes in the future more carefully. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

which cites?
Yaf wrote above: "Partially correct, except you are ignoring that protections under both state constitutions and under the federal constitution embedded in the Second Amendment were argued successfully during court cases in state courts, per the cites in the article." I only see the one cite, from the 1967 document. The "Anti-Crime Program. Hearings", longer quote requested. Which others show that these state court cases were under jurisdiction of the federal constitution? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you need to look again, for the article clearly states: "The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[92]" There are several other cases, too, from which examples could additionally be drawn, but it would be undue weight to add them, too. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Shalope quote leading "origin of the right" section is POV push
The Robert Shalope quote "To deny arms to some men..." (footnote 3) leading off the origin of the right section gives an odd emphasis high up in the article to the individual rights theory. Looking at other sourcing, the predominate "origin of the right" theory points to the laws and customs of 17th Century England, especially the 1689 Bill of Rights, see Joyce Lee Malcolm's book and many others. That sentence seems to be a WP:SYN problem and exhibits selective focus through selective quoting gives undue weight to one POV, the theory of individual rights to firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the American system of government, ALL rights start at the individual level. A collective right is just the sum of the "individual rights" of all the individual in the group in question.

To say that a group has the right to own guns, but that the individuals of that group don't is PLAINLY ASSININE! Once you rub a those couple of brain cells together I'm sure you'll agree. Unfortunately getting those brain cells moving is tough!

here's a hint to get those brain cells moving. How can you exercise a collective right to own guns if ALL the individuals are forbidden from owning them. Think Washington DC. aka Murder Capital of the US, where exactly that situation took place.4.154.239.152 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Following comment seems wrong
In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

I believe that under the Articles of Confederation the states were considered "nations" and that the Articles of Confederation was considered a sort of "super treaty". A current example would be Europe and the gradual erosion of state powers in favor of the EU or "European Union".

Back then the states were New York, Virginia, Massachusetts and the rest, while currently the "states" are Germany, France, Italy and the rest. At some point the various states ceased to be considered separate nations, but vestiges of that nationhood still remain. For instance I recently read an article about a number of the states individually entered students into inter-NATIONAL education competitions. Their students were not part of the "United States" team.

The following from the Massachusetts Constitution support the notion that at the time, the states considered themselves "SOVEREIGN" nations", following their own course, except for their obligations to the "super treaty" organization known as the "United States". My opinion is that the states officially lost their "nationhood" as a result of the Civil War.

''Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.''

as to when the above Article was written, the following describes the timing of passage of the Constitution of Massachusetts.

''On the 11th of November the Convention adjourned, to meet at the Representatives’ Chamber, in Boston, January 5th, 1780. On the 2d of March, of the same year, a form of Constitution having been agreed upon, a Resolve was passed by which the same was submitted to the people, and the Convention adjourned to meet at the Brattle Street Church, in Boston, June the 7th. At that time and place the Convention again met, and appointed a Committee to examine the returns of votes from the several towns. On the 14th of June the Committee reported, and on the 15th the Convention resolved, “That the people of the State of Massachusetts Bay have accepted the Constitution as it stands, in the printed form submitted to their revision.” A Resolve providing for carrying the new Constitution into effect was passed; and the Convention then, on the 16th of June, 1780, was finally dissolved.'' 4.154.234.114 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The United States has been considered a nation at least since the A of C. Back then, the country was a confederation, while it's now a federation. U.S. states were not, technically at least, independent countries under the A of C. This article shouldn't get into a discussion regarding the de facto status of the states under the A of C. SMP0328. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please reread Article IV of the Constitution of Massachusetts above, written in the time period of the sentence in question,, and let me know if you missed one or more of the words "free" "sovereign" and "independent".4.154.235.250 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Patrick Henry referring to Virginia as a "country" during the debates on the Constitution

''But now when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national. The honorable member James Madison was pleased to say, that the sword and purse included every thing of consequence. And shall we trust them out of our hands without checks and barriers? The sword and purse are essentially necessary for government every essential requisite must be in congress. Where are the purse and sword of Virginia? They must go to congress. What is become of our country? The Virginian government is but a name. It clearly results from his last argument that we are to be consolidated.''4.154.235.250 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to do an edit when the article protection comes off. 4.156.78.7 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * or, you could open an account, and edit now. Anastrophe (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * and it would promptly be closed because I firmly believe in calling an idiot an idiot. 4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Following still needs fixing from

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

to something like

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a federation of sovereign, independent states under the Articles of Confederation.4.154.254.139 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this wording?

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"loose alliance" goes too far in the opposite direction. Close alliance is better. Also I think either "sovereign" or independent" should be included for clarity

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a close alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation4.154.236.158 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording change has been made. SMP0328. (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The expression "United States" simply means the States that united. Art. VI, Sec. 3 of the US Const. reads: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." The 'United States' and the several 'States' are two separate things. Each sovereign State has a Republican form of government, a constitution that created it, with Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. These States created the government of the United States and delegated certain powers to it in Art. I, Sec. 8, to settle interstate conflicts and international conflicts. Beyond that the federal government has no power. The Bill of Rights was added to assure states that their new creature would not exercise any power over rights. The Bill of Rights is a Bill of Don'ts. The 2A's 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government, that's whatCruikshank declared in 1875, and what Heller reaffirmed in 2008. (Truwik (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Heller only listed the historical interpretations of the 2A. There was no "reaffirmed" aspect to it with regards to incorporation, only an historical accounting of past decisions, along with dicta that, at the time of Cruikshank, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment were both not incorporated against the states. Since then, the SCOTUS has ruled on incorporation of the 1st Amendment, but not on the 2A. It is incorrect to say Heller reaffirmed non-incorporation amd that 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government; incorporation was not on the table in Heller. Yaf (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heller reaffirmed (in footnote 23)"that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." By that, the Court meant that the 2A's restrictive purpose 'shall not be infringed' applies exclusively to the federal government. The Court simply stated that to-date, the 2A had not been incorporated. Yaf's comment is self-contradictory, if 'incorporation was not on the table in Heller, then the 2A has no application within the states. (Truwik (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC))


 * The issue of incorporation was not before the Supreme Court, because no State or local government was a party to the case. The Opinion of the Court was only noting that Heller was not changing the Second Amendment's status regarding State and local governments. SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. We agree the 2A hasn't been 'incorporated' but apparently have different views as to what that means. The 2A doesn't guarantee the right, it just prohibits the federal government from infringing on it. If a citizen of a state has been denied the right to keep and bear arms, contrary to what that state law protects, then such citizens must file suit in federal court under the 14A, claiming that he had been denied due process of law. In Cruikshank two blacks had been denied the right by a mob of whites, but no claim was made under the 14A, and the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Even if the blacks had done so, that wouldn't have changed the status of the 2A. It would have just required that state to apply its laws equally. That is, the Cruikshank crime was a state-law violation. (Truwik (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC))


 * To be "reaffirmed" the decision has to be "reexamined". No such "reexamination" took place in Heller. Because no "reexaminaton" took pace the prior decision "stands". Citing a prior decision is not the same as "reaffiming" that decision. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, but that's incorrect. The Heller Court did re-examine their preceding decisions. In footnote 23, after re-examining Cruikshank, the Court said: "Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S.252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas 153 U.S. 535, 528 (1894) re-affirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." Per Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 're-affirm' means: "to re-validate or re-confirm; to restate positively." Thus the 2A's 'shall not be infringed' applies only to federal law. (Truwik (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Arzberger
Another gun control law (embedded in the Adam Walsh Act) has fallen post-Heller in US v. Arzberger(see transcript). What is interesting is that automatic suspension of an individual's right to arms is no longer automatic. Specifically, "an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose ... also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]". Interesting, most interesting. Who would've "thunk" it? Yaf (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the case where gun licensing fees are axed as an infringement. We have a Constitutinal amendment forbidding the use of poll taxes as an infringement on the right to vote. Licensing fees are in the same category of infringement. Both require you to pay to exercise an inherent right.

If the government wants to keep track of guns, the cost should be out of their pocket4.154.236.158 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have added the Arzberger "protectible liberty interest" details to the article. Very interesting fall-out from Heller, with regards to interpreting the Second Amendment, that are coming from this new case. Yaf (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"To Bear Arms" section should be deleted
With the hoopla going on about reducing the article to a smaller, more manageable size, I find that the section on "to bear arms" is fat that need to be trimmed. There is no need to have a section on "to bear arms" and another section on "to keep and bear arms".

Since the Second Amendment wording is about the right "to keep and bear arms", that section should stay. However upon deletion of the "to bear arms" section, enough material should be added (or transfered) to this section to make clear the military usage of the term "to bear arms".4.154.251.209 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brady Campaign POV
Allowing commentary from a gun control group and disallowing such from gun ownership advocacy groups such as the NRA is blatant POV. The comment should either be removed or comments from gun advocacy groups should be allowed into the article.

To Salty Boatr - The above is called BALANCE. Something you keep spouting about but never seem to practice.68.160.163.116 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say I'm amazed!

I went and looked up older versions of the article and the Brady Campaign references have been in the article for at least 2 years (I got tired of looking and stopped in early 2007).

With all the hoopla about the NRA being partial on the issue and therefore not a citeable source, how come nobody noticed that the Brady Campaign is also partial on the issue and ALSO NOT A CITEABLE source?

SIMPLY F'N AMAZING!68.160.163.116 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe the Brady Campaign references should be removed or should NRA references be added? SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the NRA is a biased source and can't be used as source material for that reason, then the same goes for the Brady Campaign, I therefore go with removed.


 * An alternate answer is, if you want to get the ongoing POV tag off the article at some point, you need to satisfy a certain editor who froths at the mouth at the mere mention of the NRA!68.163.105.54 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with removing the Brady Campaign references?68.163.105.54 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using a new another internet provider (and another computer) for the above, but it seems that someone decided to block that computers access to editing wiki. So I went back to the old one computer and internet provider.

I find that block in the midst of complaining about a BLATANT POV issue a bit disturbing. I HOPE it was not maliciously done to shut me up.

Back to the issue: What is the difficulty with removing references to the Brady Campaign?4.154.251.209 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank the person who removed some of the Brady Campaign references. However two still remain. One is the quote backed by footnote 40 and the other the quote backed by footnote 117.

I am holding Brady Campaign references to the same standard as NRA material. That standard is no mention at all, and no use of posibly biased matterial as backing for any quote of figure. Any breach of this standard is in fact POV bias in the article.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sice the article is now unprotected, I took action and deleted the last two references to the Brady Campaign material.

As a result,I have no POV issues wih the article.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting from Cornell's book
The text inserted by SaltyBoatr ended up as: "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted. ... Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the case... (as) a disgrace that ultimately revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law.”" I reduced this quote to just "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.” for the reason that Cornell's book said no such thing. SaltyBoatr selectively selected phrases over 2 pages, hidden by the ellipses, to construct the implication that the Monthly Law Report denounced the case. It did no such thing according to Cornell. Rather, the MLR denounced something else entirely (the "atrocity of the deed" committed by Ward.) I have corrected (for the second time) the misquote due to SaltyBoatr's editing through selectively looking for words over two pages to construct a POV pushing statement that is entirely different from what the source actually says. Such POV pushes must stop. Let's stick with the actual words in books, while not leaving out words to change the meaning 180 degrees from what the source(s) actually say. Yaf (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that editor Yaf's statement is simply not accurate. The exact quote from the book is "Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the 'atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted.' The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law.” Although the denouncing was of the deed, it is clear that the book says that the Monthly Reporter did indeed call the case a disgrace that revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law. For this reason, I am reinserting the sentence into the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No inaccuracy on my part. Calling the case a "disgrace" is not the same as saying that denouncing the atrocity of the deed for which the  prisoner was indicted is the same as denouncing the case.  Let's stick to the actual quotes, OK?  When a "quote" is manufactured using multiple ellipses, it generally is taken as evidence of a POV push, especially when the denouncing of the deed is confused with denouncing the case.  No inacccuracy on my part, but, rather, a sly POV push on SaltyBoatr's part, and on your part, too, in manufacturing a "quote" or a "quote" misdirection to fit pushing a POV agenda.  This clearly needs to stop.  The actual complete quote from p. 150 is: Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the "atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted."  Ward had clearly benefited from the anomalous holding in Bliss.  Still, even outside of Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's laywers had entered the legal mainstream.  Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss would only grow stronger over time.  The more complete quote presents an entirely different emphasis than what your present selection in the article indicates Cornell says.  Another POV push that needs to be fixed. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the MLR's calling Bliss a "disgrace" in regards to its ruling on the RKBA? If not, how is that material germane to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Only in conflating "disgrace" in an attempt at "badmouthing" the primitives in Kentucky with such odd ideas.  An entirely different insult, altogether.  Such irrelevant material really doesn't belong in this article.  If it is here, it needs to be accurate, though.  Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have added the complete quote, and corrected page numbers, to eliminate the unbalanced POV push. (Personally, though, I think the portion of the quote after "acquitted" doesn't belong, being irrelevant.  Yaf (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the only POV being pushed is Yaf's. The 'correction' relentlessly pushes the idea that the Bliss decision gained mainstream acceptance here, which inside of a full reading of Cornell, is a highly slanted position, ignoring the popular condmenation of the decision based on these grounds, both in the populace and law journals. I will make a correction to fully reflect the text. Either Cornell is used or it is not; you can't use it for your own agenda. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to sound harsh - However it appears to me that when you quote a whole paragraph, remove the one critical sentence that seems to go against your POV (without using any notation to mention you were altering the quote) and then calling it 'eliminating POV push', you are not accurately reflecting what your edit actually is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excepting the "one critical sentence" you added in the middle of a quote is not taken verbatim from Cornell's book in the quote that is cited. I have no problems with you (or anyone else, for that matter) adding another cite for a separate "disgrace" comment, with another cite and another/other page number.  But, pushing a new sentence of your own into an actual quote taken from and cited from Cornell is OR and is intellectually dishonest; Whatever gets added needs to be accurate in summarizing what Cornell (or whomever) has actually stated.  And, lets not go and modify quotes, inserting other statements to push any particular POV, OK?  That said, add the other comment, outside the quote, or in a separate quote, in either case add the reliable and verifiable cite; then, it becomes no problem.  Yaf (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what book you are reading, but what I'm looking at shows that 'Kentucky justice' quote smack in the middle of p. 150. The other editor obviously saw this sentence too - It was not invented. I am reinserting it in the article because it's in A Well Regulate Militia on p. 150. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * this sounds to me like a discrepancy between editions. it might be helpful to list the full publishing data here for comparison. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How likely could it be, with word wrap, for there to be discrepancy between editions and still have this passage fall on page 150 in both editions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * it's entirely likely. why do you ask? often differences between editions are comprised of fixes of typos, paragraph break changes, and corrections of material. those changes - often including both the addition and subtraction of small amounts of text - can easily fall within the same page numbering. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You think it is likely? Don't make me laugh.  I ask because I am mad about being falsely accused of fraud.  It would be nice to clear the air and have Yaf show us a scan, or describe exactly which edition of the book he was reading.  I fully expect to be ignored by Yaf, or to hear an excuse that he doesn't have a scanner.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally assume good faith for editors, however, based upon your past history, specifically for you being known for changing quotes/sources to something other than what is actually in the source, my level of skepticism was naturally high in this instance, especially as I had a copy of the book without the POV statement. If I have offended you by questioning the veracity of your quote, I apologize.  But, your POV pushing history is such that trust has to be re-earned gradually after an author has previously been found guilty of intentionally misusing sources in "citing" Wikipedia articles.  The ultimate goal is an accurate Wikipedia.  Questioning sources and quotes through verifying them is never meant to cause issues, only to ensure that Wikipedia is kept accurate. In this case, there was a difference between editions of the book that caused further skepticism.  Yaf (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your backhanded apology, mixed with a spurious personal attack, falls short. Notice, that Yaf ignored my request for clarification of exactly which edition of the book he is reading.  Exactly which version of page 150 are you reading Yaf? Please respond.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this previously. But, since you evidently had trouble reading this previously, it is ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5.  Yaf (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not misquote. The full paragraph on page 150 of Cornell's book ISBN 0-19-514786-3 (Oxford University Press, 2006) reads:


 * note - saltyboatr modified the above ISBN after it was pointed out that it was invalid. it would be preferred not to alter the extant record of conversation, as it obfuscates what's going on in the following discussion. i would recommend that SB undo the change of ISBN, post a corrected ISBN separately, and then delete my comments here. Anastrophe (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I corrected the ISBN. I accidentally typed a 9 instead of a 6. This is obvious.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the "atrocity of deed for which the prisoner was indicted."  The case was "a disgrace" that ultimately revealed more about the "Kentucky justice" than it did about American law.  Ward clearly benefited from anomalous holding in Bliss.  Still, even outside Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's lawyers had entered the legal mainstream.  Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss grew only stronger over time."24

It is very curious that Yaf's quote of this same passage is missing the sentence marked in bold, and that Yaf accuses me of fraud. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is curious is that ISBN 0-19-514789-3 decodes as an invalid ISBN number, providing further indication of fraud. (Click on it, you will see.) It is also not the ISBN number of the Cornell book that is cited, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, which is a source that I provided/documented, that is an actual ISBN number and which decodes as valid when you click on it.  Meanwhile, I still need to do some additional serious WorldCat and OCLC digging on this.  What a quick look shows, though, is that there are 3 hardcopy editions, and 6 misc. electronic editions, dating from 2006, 2007, and 2008.  SaltyBoatr, what is the real ISBN number of the Cornell book that "shows" the extra sentence?  Yaf (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the "quote" listed here by SaltyBoatr is different than Nwlaw63's "quote" of the supposed same passage that he has inserted into the article, all while referencing the ISBN number of a source that does not contain this added sentence in its text, "“Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted. ... Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the 'atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted.' The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. Ward had clearly benefited from the anomalous holding in Bliss. Still, even outside of Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's laywers had entered the legal mainstream. Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss would only grow stronger over time.'"
 * So which is it? "The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. " or "The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about the 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law. And, what is the real ISBN number of this "supposed" source?  Yaf (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf don't you have a copy of this book handy? Here is a scan of page 150, read it for yourself.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ISBN SB gave is one digit off from the ISBN-10 for this book. The second to last digit should be a 6 rather than a 9. Celestra (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated previously, I do have a copy of Cornell's book. I just happen to have a later edition than you are reading, judging from the ISBN numbers.  I also now believe that the POV phrase was in Cornell's first edition of his book, from seeing the picture SaltyBoatr graciously provided above, but that the POV phrase was removed after the first edition by Cornell.  (Also, contrary to what SaltyBoatr so forcefully stated above, he not only misquoted the text, now corrected above with SaltyBoatr's newly-added strikeout, but he also misquoted the ISBN number as well. Argggh... Let's pay more attention to details in the future, please.)  Meanwhile, there are still differences in the quoted texts between editions, and the later edition that is cited in the article does not contain the additional POV phrase.  We need to resolve this.  Which edition of Cornell should we use for this cite?  Should we cite the article with the later edition ISBN number incorrectly, while retaining the POV phrase that Cornell evidently dropped when correcting his book between editions/printings? (That is where we are now, incidently.)  Or, should we cite the article with the older edition ISBN number, with the older POV phrase retained in the article?  Since authors do correct their books in publishing newer editions, I move that we go with the Cornell-corrected, later ISBN edition/printing, for which the POV phrase was removed by Cornell.  That would most accurately reflect Cornell's latest belief(s).  If so, then the ISBN number that is cited in the article is correct, but the POV phrase that existed in the older edition needs to be removed, such that the quote accurately reflects what Cornell currently believes, in the later corrected editions of his book.  We should not hold to a "typographical error" that Cornell himself has subsequently corrected, just to make a POV push addition to the article.  Comments?  Yaf (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, exactly which edition of Cornell's book are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already answered this previously. But, since you evidently had trouble reading this previously, it is ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. It is worth noting that 13-digit ISBNs, if available, generally should be used for Wikipedia, as these became standard on all new printings of books as of January 1, 2007. (See Wikipedia:ISBN.)  The older 2006 edition of Cornell that you list only has an ISBN 10 digit code. Yaf (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note that I do not own the book - My information came from viewing page 150 on Amazon.com, which lists an August, 4, 2008 publication date with two ISBN numbers - 10: 0195341031 and 13:978-0195341034. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those numbers refer to the paperback. Amazon.com presents the hardcover when you examine the paperback; there is a little banner about that at the top of the page. Celestra (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also worth urging that we don't accuse each other of bad faith in what is obviously just a big misunderstanding. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of a book with an ISBN number identical to Yaf, in my hand now. Here is a scan of the title page of that book showing the ISBN number 978-0-19-514786-5.  My copy of the book shows the "Kentucky justice" sentence on page 150.  Yaf claims his book with this identical ISBN number does not include this sentence on page 150.  Explain how two books with identical ISBN numbers are likely for one to be missing a sentence on page 150?  This rises just short of proof, but it appears that there is more than a misunderstanding here.  Is there another possible explanation for this anomaly I am missing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr assumes every other editor is "pro-gun" and is consistently injecting systemic "pro-gun" bias into their every edit on Wikipedia for all edits that are not personally approved by him. It's not personal, and I take no offense at his continuous bad faith assumptions, being his equal-opportunity jabs are directed at all editors and not just me. Getting back on topic, according to WorldCat, there are 9 different editions/printings of this book by Cornell:  ISBN 978-0-19-534103-4 ISBN 0-19-534103-1  Book  2008; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Downloadable computer file  2008; OCLC 166921403  Audio Book  2007:  ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978- 0-19-514786-5 eBook 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006;  ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 Book 2006;  OCLC 271577871 ebook 2006; ISBN 0-19-514786-3 ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5  Book 2006.  What is worth noting is that there are different editions with the same ISBN numbers among the different printings.  I am not familiar with what constitutes a requirement for a new ISBN number.  Is it common practice to keep the same ISBN number on a book, yet actually change content in subtle ways between printings, or, say, for publishing in different formats, or for selling into different audiences (say, to NRA audiences vs. to Brady Campaign audiences, for example)?  There are 6 editions/printings (if I have counted right) that have the same ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 number all associated with them.  Yet, they are in different media and were published in different editions/printings at different times.  Most curious. Anyone know how the requirement for getting a new ISBN actually works vs. works by published guidelines?  As for which version of Cornell's text should be used for the cite, I personally vote for the latest edition, even if it has the POV statement about Kentucky justice back in it.  I advocate accuracy and being up to date on cites, not pushing any particular POV. The August 2008 edition noted by Nwlaw63, though, being an image of a hardcopy version, may actually be of the older first edition hardcopy version; it certainly is not of the paperback version as noted by Celestra, nor is it of the hardcopy version that I have.  How do we determine the most recent published version, or the "right" version?  Any ideas? Do we even need anything in this quote after "Ward was acquitted."?  As I have stated previously, all the other words just look like an attempt to either smear the primitives in Kentucky for having such odd ideas, or to push a POV agenda message into the text of the article or to balance a POV agenda message inserted into the quote.  Is there even any need to insert all this POV crap into the quote?Yaf (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yaf, are you willing to post a scan of your page 150 for us to see? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to. A trip to the library today produced a version of the book for me to peruse of a later printing with the POV phrase in it.  This obviously now represents Cornell's latest position, hence it is what should be here.  The punctuation needed correcting, however.  I have fixed that.  Yaf (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The need remains. I have been falsely accused of fraud.  It is needed to clear the air.  Yaf has said that the passage in his copy of the book on 150 does not include "kentucky justice" sentence.  Yaf has never explained exactly which edition of the book he holds and how he has a basis of accusing me of fraud.  Yaf, this appears very odd, please explain this odd appearance.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not falsely. Remember this  edit?  In it, you falsely claimed the MLR denounced the Bliss case as a disgrace.  It did no such thing.  Rather, the actual quote says the MLR denounced the atrocity of the deed committed by Ward.  Also, you falsely claimed an exact quote that featured a wrong phrasing per the source material, with a falsely claimed ISBN number, that you later subtly modified in your ongoing talk page discussions in the hopes that no one would notice your error and correction, all indicative of further fraud. (Only proper ISBN numbers decode as valid; the one you listed did not decode as valid when clicked.) Now that the whole thing is resolved, and the quote is corrected in a Wikipedia article, and, further, is of the latest versions of Cornell's book, you wish to clear the air.  Fine.  Start by paying more attention to your "quotes" and your cites (checking ISBN numbers) in the future.  It would largely address the whole issue, while avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Stop by not falsely claiming "exact quotes" with typos of non-existent ISBN numbers, of phrasing that doesn't appear in sources.  It is you who has blown this misunderstanding all out of proportion.  The current text is both accurate, and is consistent with the latest version of Cornell's book. Wikipedia's accuracy is maintained.  Let's pay more attention to details in the future, OK?  Yaf (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You attempt to focus on me, to divert from you. The fact remains that you explicitly claimed you own a copy of the Cornell book without the "kentucky justice" sentence on page 150.  A claim that now seems hugely incredible. You used that claim to accuse me of fraud, a claim (look above) that remains on this talk page.  You lack the civil decency to strike your false comments.  Now you squirm to avoid proving your claim.  And, layer on even more false accusations on my character. It is reasonable to conclude that you actually don't own a book like you said, and what you said is a ___.  I need to omit the word and use underscores because of your history of deleting my comments from the talk page.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think both editors here need to take a deep breath and review Wikipedia's good faith policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment and gun control
The article suffers from a total lack of discussion the Second Amendment in relation to gun control. (While the article manages to mention the term "individual right(s)" fifteen times.) Clearly, a section in the article should be added to discuss the relationship for gun control, and firearm legislation vis a vis the Second Amendment. The threshold should be significant views that have been published by reliable sources. See for instance webpages discussing this relationship. Also, many reliable source books address this aspect of the 2A topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Marksmanship clearly doesn't belong in this article. This article is about the Second Amendment, not target shooting.  Yaf (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And what is your point? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i believe his point is that the term "gun control" is ambiguous and imprecise, and such terms have no place in an encyclopedia. perhaps you were referring to legislative restrictions on access to firearms? Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly you then also believe that the term "individual right" is also ambiguous and imprecise? (and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia?) When I say "gun control" I am speaking of the concept of "It is well settled that the right is not unqualified, but is subject to the police power of the States." The fact that the article dwells on the term "individual right(s)" more than a dozen times, and neglects to mention the police power of the state to enact gun control legislatively is evidence of the WP:NPOV problem with this article and this should be fixed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe was exactly right, here, regarding my intended point. "Gun control" is very imprecise. It can mean being a marksman, as I identified, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  It can also mean the power of a police state to disarm individuals, from a recognized right that is protected in the Second Amendment, for precluding citizens from defending against a tyrannical government.  "Gun control" is also a pejorative term in many circles for assuming that somehow it is better for a woman to be raped in a dark alley rather than to defend herself and violate the rights of a criminal rapist to ply his trade. As for "individual right" vs. "gun control", there is a much more important reason for the difference in coverage. In Heller, the Supreme Court  held in their first statement that, “The Second Amendment  protects an individual right  to possess a firearm  unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.”(See Heller  decision.) There was no holding for "gun control" that was mentioned in the holdings in Heller.   As for “gun control” discussions in Heller, there is a little discussion in the Heller transcript of "gun control", but even in the dissent of Judge Breyer on p. 38 of Heller, he states, "...it seems unlikely that the Framers thought about urban gun control at all."  Being that this is an article about an historical Amendment to the Constitution, why should we inject  any inordinate amount of modern discussion regarding "gun control" into the article beyond what is there now?  This would only inject unbalancing POV into the article, achieving a noticeable unbalancing of NPOV within the article.    Injecting any advocacy or "hope" of transforming America into a police state through disarmament of citizenry is not a worthwhile "change" that should be made to the article.  Yaf (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, your personal opinion and original research do not belong on the talk page. I provided reliable and credible sourcing that "It is well settled that the right is not unqualified, but is subject to the police power of the States".  This meets WP:V standards.  Agreed?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is well established that the police power can't take away personal and property righs protected by the various State and Federal Constitutions. Any law enaced that is contrary to Constitutonal language is null and void. Pesonally I would like to see the people voting to pass these types of laws prosecuted as the felons that they are. Anyone voting to pass laws contrary to Constitutional language is commiting breach of the oath of office and therefore perjury of such. Perjury is a felony!


 * Hey! I can dream can't I?141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arzberger is an Eighth Amendment case
Yaf's recent insertion of the US v Arzberger is related to the topic of this article only distantly remote, because that case is an Eighth Amendment case. Yaf's present wording is ambiguous and implies that the dicta mention of Heller amounts to a holding, which it does not. This is a WP:SYN and WP:POV problem that needs to be fixed. SaltyBoatr SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * US v. Arzberger is a very important case. It is also an important interpretation of what Heller says the Second Amendment means.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds to claim WP:SYN and WP:POV falsely exist and to remove properly cited content that is clearly on-topic. And, before you accuse it of being such, this was not a "pro-gun" edit. Rather, it is an important interpretation of the Second Amendment that clearly belongs in this article, especially being a very recent holding. Yaf (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arzberger is an Eight Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. The relation of it to Heller is tangential. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No reply from Yaf. Though I am guessing that when Yaf says "clearly on topic" that Yaf erroneously holds a misconception that the topic of this article is "Right to keep and bear arms" rather than the Second Amendment. These related topics are not the same. Arzberger is a very interesting case which says that the right to firearms is not allowed to be forfeited as bail, but on Eighth Amendment grounds and not on Second Amendment grounds. This belongs in other articles, and is off topic here. Certainly the Eighth Amendment article, and the RTKBA article and perhaps also it should be included in the Heller article because Heller is mentioned? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment in Arzberger. There is also considerable interpretation of what Heller means in terms of the meaning of the Second Amendment in Arzberger, in what is becoming a rather large break with much prior judicial practice regarding interpretation of the Second Amendment. For these reasons, it is clearly on topic. Also, please do not attack other editors and assume you understand all editors' "misconceptions", as you so crudely put it. To assume you alone can contribute to this article or that you alone can interpret other editor's edits, motives, and "misconceptions" is arrogance of the worst kind. Such attitude borders on being a personal attack, and, at the very least, contributes to an elitist, exclusionary attitude against other editors that drives many potential knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. Such arrogance and attitude have no place on Wikipedia. Please discuss the article, not other editors' motives, "misconceptions", or similar, on the talk pages. Arzberger is clearly on-topic for the reasons that have been stated. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Arzberger is an Eight Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A few items from Arzberger - Looks like Second Amendment stuff to me - Don't like the fact that this judge thinks that the Second Amendent "created" a right instead of "protecting" a pre existing right, but I can live with it!


 * A year ago, I might well have taken for granted the authority of Congress to require that a person charged with a crime be prohibited from possessing a firearm as a condition of pretrial release.... [But, given D.C. v. Heller, t]o the extent ... that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.


 * Accordingly, the Adam Walsh Amendments [the name of the statute involved here -EV] violate due process by requiring that, as a condition of release on bail, an accused person be required to surrender his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm without giving that person an opportunity to contest whether such a condition is reasonably necessary in his case to secure the safety of the community. Because the Amendments do not permit an individualized determination, they are unconstitutional on their face. The Government's application to impose as a condition of bail that Mr. Arzberger not possess a firearm is therefore denied....

141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, a case can be about more than one law. Arberger seems to be about the Second and Eighth Amendments. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The holding is about the Eighth Amendment. The non-binding dicta mentions the Second Amendment. The real issue is that the court recognizes that the right to firearms is an individual right and therefore is not allowed to be forfeited as bail. "individual right to firearms" does not equal "Second Amendment". The dicta mentions Heller as precedence that the right to firearms is an individual right. That is tangentially related to the Second Amendment, but the case is an Eight Amendment ruling. Again, and again and again, editors are loading in tangential "individual right" references, now sixteen times that I see. This agenda violates the undue balance policy. This contributes to the WP:NPOV balance problem with the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Arzberger is an Eighth Amendment case decided on Fifth and Second Amendment grounds. It also represents a radical shift in judicial interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Specifically, pages 22 through 25 of the transcript on Arzberger (United States v. Arzberger) provide a detailed discussion of the new judicial meaning of the Second Amendment coming as a result of Heller. Slightly more than tangential mention of the Second Amendment, it is obvious. Three complete pages of Arzberger are on nothing but the Second Amendment. This detailed interpretation of the Second Amendment, being that it is a huge change in judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment due to Heller, clearly belongs in this article, under the post-Heller fallout. 163.205.105.46 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know the difference between obiter dicta and rationes decidendi? Plainly, the push to insert Arzberger into the article serves to shift the balance of the article further towards an "individual right" point of view through the use of non-binding tangential comment of the judge. This is an example of the WP:UNDUE problem with the article. Notice that attention is paid to one Eighth Amendment case favorable to the 'individual rights' hypothesis, even though this case mentions the Second Amendment only as an aside. Yet no mention is made of the scores of lower federal court Second Amendment cases ruled upon since Heller that happen to not be favorable to the same hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, are you claiming the reference to the Second Amendment in Arzberger was not necessary to the decision in that case? That's what obiter dicta means. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The mention of the Second Amendment was not binding, and the mention of the Second Amendment has no weight of precedence on other courts. See Stare decisis.  Put another way, mentions of the Second Amendment in dicta, belongs in the trivia section.     SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the meaning of the Second Amendment according to Heller is ratio. Meaning, it is a direct reason for the holding.  With a proper understanding of the ratio of a precedent, an advocate can in effect force a lower court to come to a decision which that court may otherwise be unwilling to make, considering the facts of the case.  In Arzberger, both the 5A  and the 2A figured in the holding.  The reason behind the decision is not dicta.  It is ratio.  And, it is entirely appropriate here, being this is the article on the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, the minority or dissent in Heller is dicta, which by your logic should be stripped from Wikipedia. This would include the snide comments from the dissent in Heller.  Likewise for the lesser interpretation of the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment discussed in Heller, being it was only discussed in the dissent, which automatically makes it dicta. By your reasoning, they should all go.   Is this really what you advocate? Yaf (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire threatens to secede from the Union over gun rights
and other matters

This and similar items may have a place in the article. Another state, I believe Montana, made a similar threat against the US Government prior to the Heller decision on contractual grounds. The organization known as the "United States" being in fact a "subcontractor" to the States who have subcontracted a number of power to that organization. That threat may have influenced the Supreme Court to rule as it did on Heller.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the part that sounds like a reference to secession:"That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government"


 * Are you suggesting this should be added to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that, but I don't insist on it. The fact that two states, Montana and New Hampshire, have threatened to secede from the Union over unconstitutional federal gun control laws is at least of SOME importance.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Has this resolution been passed by the NH State Legislature? SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't think so. From what I can see it was introduced in he Year of Our Lord 2009. Considering the slow pace of Legislation and the fact that this is only February of that year I would not take any bets that it has passed. It probably is still in Committee. If it does pass I would say that NH need only wait a month or two before declaring that it has valid grounds for secession. These days just about everything out of Washington is unconstitutional in some way.

To quote Kissinger

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. Henry Kissinger, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

That little longer has now passed!141.154.72.56 (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless this resolution is passed by the New Hampshire General Court, it isn't noteworthy. However, it is interesting (to me at least). SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is somethig to keep an eye on.141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Added material on what constitutes a "well regulated militia"
I previously objected to the large amount of space dedicated to the phrase "to bear arms" when the phrase showing up is "to keep and bear arms". If a phrase not showing up in the Amendment can have such a large amount of space dedicated to it, then certainly the much misunderstood phase "well regulated" can claim a small amount of space in the article in order to lessen that misunderstanding.141.154.72.56 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "well regulated" deserves coverage, but using credible secondary sources. But the way you gave coverage, by directly excerpting from the Federalists Papers is a form of original research and violates the WP:NOR policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny how you didn't have anything to say about quoting Hamilton when his quote was the only one not deleted in the "adoption" section a few month back. Anyway quoting historical figures is acceptable per wiki rules. Please go bark up another tree! Better yet, if you disagree with the quote, do some work and find another historical figure from the same period who defined the term differently. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The key seems to be finding a consensus for the form a "well regulated" section or subsection would take. Consensus needs to be found before such material is added to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice consesus was not reached when the quotes from Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, among others, were deleted from the "Adoption" section a few mnths back. I posted a NAY to that move so I can't see how a consensus was reached. Again, if the phrase "to bear arms", which does not show up within the Second Amendment can claim half a page of the article, then the term "well-regulated" which does appear, can certainly claim a paragraph. As finding a consensus with Salty Boatr involve the wholesale surrender of each and every position he disagrees with it is NOT going to happen on this issue. The Hamilton quote is clear and to the point on what constitutes a well regulated militia. If a better one comes along then it can either be added or the Hamilton quote can be replaced. Until that time I believe the Hamilton quote shoud stay.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the George Mason quote is the one remaining quote in the Adoption section, not Alexander Hamilton. As the editor who removed most of those quotations, I took the view that the extensive quotations that existed therein did constitute original research. Moreover, they added great length to an already overlong article. In truth, we should be discussing ways to do more pruning-Adding more material about what constitutes a well regulated militia seems to be the kind of tangent that is already too common here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a part of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Not a quote. Why don't you go back a few months or so and check out the job YOU did and see whose quote YOU left, Mr. The article is too big and I will downsize it no matter what anyone else sez!141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Post Heller court cases
For some reason, Yaf deleted three short paragraphs describing important post-heller court cases. Lets discuss this if need be. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They were removed because: Wikipedia is not a list, these are not Second Amendment cases related to the topic of article, & the content was clearly unsourced (being that blogs are not a reliable source). If there are reliable sources that claim some of these are Second Amendment cases, then those cases that are Second Amendment cases clearly should be here. But, citing with blogs and conflating firearms legislation litigation somehow with the Second Amendment is not a reason for the unsourced content to be here. Until these concerns are addressed, the list of firearms cases occurring post-Heller should be removed. Yaf (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have removed same. Issues must be addressed before blog-based commentary is re-inserted into article. Yaf (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning appears contrived to disproportionately remove mention of court cases that ruled against your personal point of view. In fact, all those three cases made rulings based on the Heller precedent. Also, the Volokh.com website that Yaf disparages as a "blog" has been used as sourcing as recently as yesterday by Yaf. Is it that this website is only credible when it supports your personal point of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are confusing Volokh's Blog commentary with archives of Court rulings, both of which can be found on his website. Putting in a courtesy link to a court case transcript used as source, that just happens to link to a pdf stored on Volokh's website, is not the same as attempting to do sourcing to the Blog portion of his website, which as stated previously, is not a reliable source. Attacking an editor through ascribing motives is a personal attack, that is not permitted on Wikipedia. You have been around long enough on Wikipedia to know better than this, on both not using blogs as sources, and also in not making personal attacks. Yaf (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When you add a case, at a minimum, add a legal citation. Such a citation does not need to link to a website. Doing that will make it much harder for that case to be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I did not ascribe motive, I instead described an appearance of bias in Yaf's actions. Notice that Yaf does not deny bias in his actions. The appearance of bias remains clear. Also, the Volokh Conspiracy group webblog appears to be reliable and topical. See this link about the Mullinex case. If Yaf is seriously denying this cite meets WP:RS, then I request that we discuss Yaf's reasoning in more detail. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From footnote 5 of the verifiability page:""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Under the above quoted material, is there any way for The Volokh Conspiracy to be considered verifiable and a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The information about Mullenix found at Volokh is corroborated by the discussion of that same case in the Harvard Law Review article, see my recent edit. Also, the Volokh group blog includes writings of pre-eminent scholars, so if the posting can be reliably corroborated (as is true in this case), the website does meet WP:RS standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, you should post content sourced not to a blog, but to a reliable source. Then, there is no issue.  As for the appearance of bias, I previously stated:  "If there are reliable sources that claim some of these are Second Amendment cases, then those cases that are Second Amendment cases clearly should be here."   The issue here is about sourcing to other than blogs; it is not about bias.  Being that you presume bias, though, you are not assuming good faith, which, as you know, is something that you should have learned on Wikipedia by now, considering your long history.  The constant sniping at other editors, the continuous assumption of bad faith, and the never-ending WP:OWN issues all need to stop.  They are not conducive to achieving Wikipedia's goals, and increasing the quality of articles.  They also don't help you in making your case(s).  Yaf (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, your actions belie your statements. Why did you delete the content twice instead of adding a  tag?  The Dorosan and Mullenix cases are in the public record, and my edit simply described their existence and gave a brief summary of easily confirmed details about these two important cases.  Why did you quickly delete them, twice, in quick succession?  The appearance of your tendency to edit war and you personal bias remains.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Case law section causes neutrality skew
I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment. I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists (primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too), I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Bliss v. Commonwealth' did not pertain to the 2A, see my entry below. In my opinion, state case-law that makes no mention of the 2A, should not be included in this 2A article, it only serves to confuse. (Truwik (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
 * There is no neutrality bias in the present article. The inclusion of interpretations of the Second Amendment occurring in state courts is entirely appropriate in an article on the Second Amendment, under a section detailing an historical treatment of interpretations of the 2A. This content also has nothing to do with being "pro-gun"; besides, the Arkansas Buzzard case can hardly be called a "pro-gun" position, being that it was the first militia-based interpretation of the 2A in the United States.  Objecting to cited content, contrary to your independent Original Research, is irrelevant.  If, on the other hand, you have material you feel is needed (to be added, for balance), then please add it, all while providing cites with reliable and verifiable sources, of course. The absence of content is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias. Rather, it is an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia!  Yaf (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yafs claim above: "inclusion of the Second Amendment occurring in the state courts" is nonsensical. The 2A is federal, and the state courts were ruling on state constitutions, not the federal constitution.  There has probably been 100,000 words spent on this topic already, check the talk archive.  "Contribute to Wikipedia!" is laughable in light of Yaf's edit history here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The state courts were ruling on interpretations of the 2A, per the cites in the article. There is no nonsense here, except for the claim that such interpretations is somehow "nonsensical".  Again, the problem appears to be with one editor's opinions that are contrary to the Heller decision from the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you promise not to edit war? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, such a question as this is nonsensical, however. Edit warring is entirely inappropriate within the Wikipedia community. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr writes:

"I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment."

It is fact that some state courts discussed the Second Amendment.

"I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists."

It's not a "point of view." It's a fact.

"(primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too)"

Whether "anti-gun" blogs choose to ignore it, doesn't mean the presentation of such material (if it is presented objectively) is biased.

"I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV."

So basically you're expressing a desire to eliminate material that favors one side because another side ignores it.Eaglecloud (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yaf, without discussion, has reverted this section again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like the deletion of Anti-Federalist quotes from the article, without discussion, over objections? Is the pot calling snow black again?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with respect to having the section removed in the first place! There was certainly no consensus on its removal. (And Buzzard still needs work) Eaglecloud (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

State court decisions over gun rights have nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A states the right "shall not be infringed" but that does not mean the right emanates from there. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states: "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." "Its powers" refers to the powers just delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, and "restrictive clauses" refers to the Bill of Rights. Thus, Congress was not to use its powers to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right, including those not mentioned. Truwik (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822), Bliss was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon (a sword in a cane), in violation of Kentucky state law enacted to: "prevent persons in the commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." Bliss argued that law violated the Ky. Constitution.  The Ky. Supreme Court agreed and held that state law void.  No mention was made of the 2A in the U.S. Const.  In State v. Buzzard (1842), Arkansas had a similar law against concealed weapons, for which Buzzard was indicted.  Buzzard argued that state law violated the 2A of the U.S. Const. The Ark. Supreme Court disagreed and upheld their state law stating it is: "in no wise repugnant either to the Const. of the U.S. or the Const. of this State." That should not be construed as incorporating the 2A, Buzzard simply misapplied it. (Truwik (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
 * In the Antebellum Section (Bliss v. Commonwealth), the statement: "This case has been described as about 'a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment,'" which cited Bliss as authority for it, is pure Libel. Mr. Stanley Musk, who made that statement in his "Gun Control Legislation: Valid And Necessary" pesentation before Congress, said that while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. So-violating that oath is Perjury. It's serious business to deliberately misrepresent a state's supreme court judgement, and anyone who repeats that untruth becomes an accessory. Thus, Bliss v. Commonwealth must be removed from the Second Amendment Article, Mr. Musk is not God. (Truwik (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC))