Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 15

Re US v Walters
I was under the impression that the 1,000 foot gun ban around schools was struck down in US v Lopez. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The alleged crime in Walters took place in the Virgin Islands, which is not a state and therefore under the management of the feds. Per the Constitution, the fed have the power to manage nonstate US possessions, but Lopez probably still applies. The defense doesn't quote Lopez in the document referenced and may not even be aware of the case. Don't know if the current version of 922(q) is the same as the one used in Lopez, but the Supreme Court nullified the totality of that section of law per "§ 922(q) is invalid" when they made their ruling.

From Lopez

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Congress repassed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1996, but added a provision stating that it would only be in effect to the extent permissible by the Commerce Clause. Source SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have read of Lopez, the extent permissible is zero.141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be permissible (1) if the crossing of State borders is involved, (2) the action occurs within an area under federal authority, but no State authority or (3) whenever the action "substantially affects" interstate commerce (quoting Lopez). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following still sounds like zero to me. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined.. I will however agree that there may be some substance to item 2 above, as the feds do have the power to manage nonstate US territories. However, there is still the issue of the Second Amendment ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which applies to all US residents, whether they are inhabitants of one of the states or not.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An example of item 1 is the Mann Act. A recent example of item 3 is Gonzales v. Raich. As for the Second Amendment, that would be a very interesting case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iffy examples a best and in at least one respect contradictory. Neither of your examples has to do with guns and a gun free school zone. Prostitution is at least a commercial activity, but rarely involves crossing state borders. It is also legal in Nevada. Gonzales and the harassment of those smoking pot under a medical prescription within States that allow it is garbage. Using the same reasoning for Gonzales the feds could harass prostitutes in Nevada.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not my opinion. I'm giving examples based on Supreme Court case law. SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just can't see how those examples apply to a gun free school zone. A purchaser and/or owner of a gun already in state has no interstate commerce issues, since he is not engaged in commerce. This is pretty much what the Supreme Court said on Lopez.141.154.72.56 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rights only apply to US "citizens" (not residents)(14A,Sec. 1). As to the issue of the 2A, Lopez simply held congress had misused its interstate commerce power, but without saying such law violated the 2A's restriction on them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, says its "restrictive clauses" were intended to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" to affect rights, the very thing section 922(q) attempted. The 2A's ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies exclusively to the federal government. (See Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, and now Heller.) (Truwik (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * "Some" rights (such as the right to vote) apply only to US Citizens. If you look at the later part of 14A Section 1 you will notice that the basic rights to life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law apply to ALL. By our reasoning if the Pope visited the US, you could go and kill him since he has no right to life, not being a US citizen. Still don't understand the basis for violating a 1,000 foot gun free zone around a school in this case, unless Walters was trying to sell one or more guns that he personally shipped in from another state in order to sell, with the transactions happening within 1,000 feet of a school. In Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that the a gun free zone was in excess of granted powers and did not fall under the Commerce Act. I will grant that since this case happened in the Virgin Islands that the feds, who were granted the authority to manage non-state territories have more power to regulate, but the Second Amendment prohibition still applies. If it applies to DC then it applies to the Virgin Islands.141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Constitutional rights apply to all people within any controlled by the federal government or any State or local government. As for the United States Virgin Islands, it is a non-State area that is, at least in the Constitutional sense, under the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress. Hence, Heller fully applies to it just as Heller applies to DC. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some rights, such as the right to vote or the right to keep arms for self defense, have been taken from many convicted felons currently in prison. Are they part of "all"? yes, you can be deprived of your rights, but ONLY though court action. Any law depriving you of your constitutionally protected rights is automatically illegal and therefore null and void. Anyone who votes to pass such a law is guilty of perjury of his oath of office. Perjury is a felony.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue
Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.

Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-joyce-foundations-attempt-to-abolish-the-second-amendment-with-the-help-of-barack-obama/

''In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.''

''In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.'' Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

''Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.''

''The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.''

''The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:''

Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf

Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"

the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"

When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen

Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.

Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias?  See WP:V and WP:NPOV.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.


 * BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?


 * BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.

WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences?  The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue.  SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial.  Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem.  THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.

There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.


 * And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.


 * Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.


 * Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?


 * RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-) Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?

Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that

http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf

Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php

From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php

Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?

As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--

Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.

At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.

Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!

Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?

Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!

Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.

One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?

Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.

In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and  the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.

Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.

FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.

Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.

I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows

it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.

Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,

in the dissent

about Negro millitias after the Civil War!

In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.

Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.


 * The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Verifiability for a description of my belief.   This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise.   I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not.  Are you willing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjust MiszaBot?
even with MiszaBot archiving threads that have had no discussion in 14 days, this page is becoming unwieldy again. i'd propose lowering the threshold to 8 days - a week and a day allows those who only have rare opportunity - perhaps on weekends - to still participate in threads should they choose to. thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. That would make sure this talk page only shows current discussions. SMP0328. (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i've done so, but obviously if any editors should disagree, they're welcome to chime in - or to change it to some other value. Anastrophe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * in case anyone was wondering, the page archiving didn't change...because i'm an idiot. hey, it was late, i was sleepy, and i managed to only change the '14' to an '8' in the introductory text of the miszabot, rather than its actual code value. duh. fixed now! Anastrophe (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A better way to keep the talk page manageable would be for us editors to encourage each other to avoid using the article talk page to discuss anything other than the content of the article. A quick archiving cycle risks archiving genuine "article talk" prematurely.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * excuse the hell out of me, but what is your rationale for removing my last comments? i see no justification for it. i also disagree with your rationale - the better way to manage an unmanageably long talk page is to archive inactive discussion. two weeks without a response is excessive. eight days is a reasonable balance. reverting the change in archiving interval, while removing my comments, and not noting that you'd done so, is, well, i don't know what it is, exactly, but it's definitely not cool. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing your comment was an editing error, (my failure to use the 'pg down' key). Sorry, not intentional. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * fair enough. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A side effect of my rational, limiting discussion to just the article, is that it would limit the incivility that comes with personal attacks on editors, or discussions of personal opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that's fine, we can all strive to do that. we can also all strive not to badger other editors with questions unrelated to matters under discussion. we can all improve our behaviour here. be that as it may, half a month without a response in a thread seems excessive. as a compromise between the eight days i proposed, and the fourteen days you prefer, i have adjusted the miszabot to eleven days. let's see how it works. other editors are certainly welcome to chime in on this change. perhaps consensus is necessary.Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we should wait 14 days to give editors a chance to read this section discussion before it gets archived. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * why? the talk page is already clearly archived. if an editor only checks in as rarely as once every half month, they have a reasonable expection that previous discussion has been archived. it will already have been archived whether it's 11 or 14 days. this seems like extreme obeisance to editors who aren't particularly active here to begin with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

so it seems that neither of us were actually adjusting the right parameters in the miszabot config. the counter apparently determines how many archives have been made, or some such. frankly, i don't have the time or inclination to screw with it any further, so i guess it stays at fourteen days unless someone wants to muck about with it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 67 request full quote
Bumping this talk page thread which got archived without an answer. I am still requesting a longer quote from this extremely obscure source for confirmation. Who is speaking? What is the question being answered? What is the context of that discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See this diff. I agree there are unanswered questions about the "violative" snippet quote. Yaf, please answer the open questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. Yaf, please provide the full quote requested. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, could you please give a full quote? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After waiting for a very long time, with no answer, I removed the 'violative' passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your refusal to look at the reliable and verifiable source, simply to push your POV through deleting content that you don't like, is inexcusable. The material is properly cited and is verifiable.  Please stop edit warring with other editors.  Have restored content.  Yaf (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, this source is very obscure and the closest public library which has it is 500 miles from my house. I am asking for more context than the short quote you have provided.  Who is speaking, and what question are they answering.  What is the context of the quote?  Your deletion of my "quotation question" seems like a hostile act.  Please, just respond.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice that Yaf uses the word "verifiable". This strongly indicates that the source is not actually yet verified.  I seek verification, beyond the truncated quote provided.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then verify it. The cited information and source has already been verified in a reliable source, and this fact has been appropriately cited in the article. The source is additionally verifiable by SaltyBoatr just by his clicking on the provided courtesy link, or by his review of a copy of the complete original document in any federal library. If SaltyBoatr truly seeks verification, then he has but to verify it. But to claim it is not verified, simply because a Wikipedia editor writing under the "SaltyBoatr" moniker has not verified it, borders on egomania, with definite WP:OWN issues.  Yaf (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "the cited information has already been verified". By who?  If by you, tell us who is speaking, and what question they are answering.  In what context does that quote exist?  Sorry, I have checked, that obscure paper document is not available in any local library near where I live.  I have tried to buy a copy mail order, and the document is so rare it is not even available for sale on the used book market that I could find.  Do you know where I can buy a copy?  See WP:Burden.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By anyone that knows how to click on a courtesy link associated with the cite and simply reads the text. This document is neither obscure, nor hard to verify.  Just click on the link and read what it says.  Yaf (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf - Either the link itself has been deleted, or it never existed. Although, it was easy enough to find through Google:  http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Pierce1.html.  You appear to be quote-mining though.  You cited this sentence when referring to Bliss:  "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."  But you didn't include the very next sentence, which seems to clarify the statement:  "In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent."  If you're going to cite something that seems to hold a certain view, you shouldn't post just the information that supports your position but the entire statement (or statements).  Of course, I have no idea how reliable Mr. Pierce is either way.  Is he known as an expert or a reliable source on the 2nd Amendment?Alexandr332 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops... just went to the 'base site' www.saf.org, which is the "Second Amendment Foundation".  Is this available on any other site than a gun rights site?  What do you mean by 'verified'?Alexandr332 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * two points: 1. due to changes in the article, the footnote under discussion actually changed from being footnote 67 to being footnote 66. so, your investigation of this footnote isn't actually relevant to the footnote that was under discussion. 2. that said, the saf page is little more than a verbatim reproduction from the Kentucky Law Review. the saf link is a courtesy link. absent some reason to believe that the text has been tampered with, i don't see a problem with unadorned textual reproductions from that site. Anastrophe (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re US v Walters
I was under the impression that the 1,000 foot gun ban around schools was struck down in US v Lopez. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The alleged crime in Walters took place in the Virgin Islands, which is not a state and therefore under the management of the feds. Per the Constitution, the fed have the power to manage nonstate US possessions, but Lopez probably still applies. The defense doesn't quote Lopez in the document referenced and may not even be aware of the case. Don't know if the current version of 922(q) is the same as the one used in Lopez, but the Supreme Court nullified the totality of that section of law per "§ 922(q) is invalid" when they made their ruling.

From Lopez

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Congress repassed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1996, but added a provision stating that it would only be in effect to the extent permissible by the Commerce Clause. Source SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have read of Lopez, the extent permissible is zero.141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be permissible (1) if the crossing of State borders is involved, (2) the action occurs within an area under federal authority, but no State authority or (3) whenever the action "substantially affects" interstate commerce (quoting Lopez). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following still sounds like zero to me. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined.. I will however agree that there may be some substance to item 2 above, as the feds do have the power to manage nonstate US territories. However, there is still the issue of the Second Amendment ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which applies to all US residents, whether they are inhabitants of one of the states or not.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An example of item 1 is the Mann Act. A recent example of item 3 is Gonzales v. Raich. As for the Second Amendment, that would be a very interesting case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iffy examples a best and in at least one respect contradictory. Neither of your examples has to do with guns and a gun free school zone. Prostitution is at least a commercial activity, but rarely involves crossing state borders. It is also legal in Nevada. Gonzales and the harassment of those smoking pot under a medical prescription within States that allow it is garbage. Using the same reasoning for Gonzales the feds could harass prostitutes in Nevada.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not my opinion. I'm giving examples based on Supreme Court case law. SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just can't see how those examples apply to a gun free school zone. A purchaser and/or owner of a gun already in state has no interstate commerce issues, since he is not engaged in commerce. This is pretty much what the Supreme Court said on Lopez.141.154.72.56 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rights only apply to US "citizens" (not residents)(14A,Sec. 1). As to the issue of the 2A, Lopez simply held congress had misused its interstate commerce power, but without saying such law violated the 2A's restriction on them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, says its "restrictive clauses" were intended to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" to affect rights, the very thing section 922(q) attempted. The 2A's ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies exclusively to the federal government. (See Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, and now Heller.) (Truwik (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * "Some" rights (such as the right to vote) apply only to US Citizens. If you look at the later part of 14A Section 1 you will notice that the basic rights to life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law apply to ALL. By our reasoning if the Pope visited the US, you could go and kill him since he has no right to life, not being a US citizen. Still don't understand the basis for violating a 1,000 foot gun free zone around a school in this case, unless Walters was trying to sell one or more guns that he personally shipped in from another state in order to sell, with the transactions happening within 1,000 feet of a school. In Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that the a gun free zone was in excess of granted powers and did not fall under the Commerce Act. I will grant that since this case happened in the Virgin Islands that the feds, who were granted the authority to manage non-state territories have more power to regulate, but the Second Amendment prohibition still applies. If it applies to DC then it applies to the Virgin Islands.141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Constitutional rights apply to all people within any controlled by the federal government or any State or local government. As for the United States Virgin Islands, it is a non-State area that is, at least in the Constitutional sense, under the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress. Hence, Heller fully applies to it just as Heller applies to DC. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some rights, such as the right to vote or the right to keep arms for self defense, have been taken from many convicted felons currently in prison. Are they part of "all"? yes, you can be deprived of your rights, but ONLY though court action. Any law depriving you of your constitutionally protected rights is automatically illegal and therefore null and void. Anyone who votes to pass such a law is guilty of perjury of his oath of office. Perjury is a felony.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjust MiszaBot?
even with MiszaBot archiving threads that have had no discussion in 14 days, this page is becoming unwieldy again. i'd propose lowering the threshold to 8 days - a week and a day allows those who only have rare opportunity - perhaps on weekends - to still participate in threads should they choose to. thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. That would make sure this talk page only shows current discussions. SMP0328. (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i've done so, but obviously if any editors should disagree, they're welcome to chime in - or to change it to some other value. Anastrophe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * in case anyone was wondering, the page archiving didn't change...because i'm an idiot. hey, it was late, i was sleepy, and i managed to only change the '14' to an '8' in the introductory text of the miszabot, rather than its actual code value. duh. fixed now! Anastrophe (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A better way to keep the talk page manageable would be for us editors to encourage each other to avoid using the article talk page to discuss anything other than the content of the article. A quick archiving cycle risks archiving genuine "article talk" prematurely.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * excuse the hell out of me, but what is your rationale for removing my last comments? i see no justification for it. i also disagree with your rationale - the better way to manage an unmanageably long talk page is to archive inactive discussion. two weeks without a response is excessive. eight days is a reasonable balance. reverting the change in archiving interval, while removing my comments, and not noting that you'd done so, is, well, i don't know what it is, exactly, but it's definitely not cool. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing your comment was an editing error, (my failure to use the 'pg down' key). Sorry, not intentional. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * fair enough. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A side effect of my rational, limiting discussion to just the article, is that it would limit the incivility that comes with personal attacks on editors, or discussions of personal opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that's fine, we can all strive to do that. we can also all strive not to badger other editors with questions unrelated to matters under discussion. we can all improve our behaviour here. be that as it may, half a month without a response in a thread seems excessive. as a compromise between the eight days i proposed, and the fourteen days you prefer, i have adjusted the miszabot to eleven days. let's see how it works. other editors are certainly welcome to chime in on this change. perhaps consensus is necessary.Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we should wait 14 days to give editors a chance to read this section discussion before it gets archived. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * why? the talk page is already clearly archived. if an editor only checks in as rarely as once every half month, they have a reasonable expection that previous discussion has been archived. it will already have been archived whether it's 11 or 14 days. this seems like extreme obeisance to editors who aren't particularly active here to begin with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

so it seems that neither of us were actually adjusting the right parameters in the miszabot config. the counter apparently determines how many archives have been made, or some such. frankly, i don't have the time or inclination to screw with it any further, so i guess it stays at fourteen days unless someone wants to muck about with it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner
The Lysander Spooner quote, which comes now at the end of the "Early Commentary" portion, should probably be moved to the "Early Commentary in State Courts" article (Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as it is superfluous to the section it closes and Spooner is not a particularly well-known commentator. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not come from a court case and therefore does not belong under the section you reference. It comes from his work "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" and rightly belongs under early commentary.68.163.105.178 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal right to rebellion and its relations to gun control laws
A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars on both sides of the gun control issue, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfull rebellion against unjust governments. This right was codified into law as far back as Article 61 of the 1215 version of the Magna Carta, which made it legal to arise in rebellion, and even went so far as to require that the King of England himself to order the people unwilling to rise in rebellion against himself and his officials, to do so, when the council of barrons serving as a check on his power found cause for this extreme action.[3]. During the Constitutional debates, Patrick Henry refered to this issue several times when he questioned how the people could resist tyrants if their arms had been taken from them.[4][5]. Lysander Spooner commented that lawfull rebellion is protected both by the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment. [6]The State of New Hampshire recognizes this right through Article 10 of the Bill of Rights to its Constitution.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=271154185&oldid=271152968

It was reverted a number of times by Blanchardb who questioned it's NEUTRALITY. I find this hard to believe as the only thing the addition does is identify a right and provides a little history.

Due to threats of Banning from Blanchardb (who seems able to back up his threats) I ask other editors to examine the addition and see whether it is NEUTRAL or not. While I certainly can see that it would be considered controversial and even inflammatory by some, I don't see a NEUTRALITY issue. Blanchard has not responded with specifics on why the addition is not NEUTRAL despite repeated requests.141.154.110.173 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * both you and blanchardb are in violation of 3RR on this matter, and both should be sanctioned. Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not me! I stopped a 2. The original addition doesn't count as a revert. At least I HOPE it doesn't. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My error. Please accept my apology. The addition shall stay. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are stating that my addition can stay in the article pending working out any issues that you may have, please undo your last revert. I will not do so, as I do not wish a 3rr violation against me. Currently you are the only one in violation. I think that an undo of your last revert would also bring you down to 2 reverts, but I may be wrong. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought that was already done. It's fixed now. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Accepted. While I don't deny that the addition would be considered controversial and even inflamatory by many. I don't see how it fails a neutrality test. The right either exists or it does not and from what I can see it does in fact exist.141.154.110.173 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i've removed the section. reasons: it was labeled "Scholarly debate", while having an opening sentence stating "A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars". how then is it scholarly debate? further, who says that this issue is central to the debate? it would seem, if it is little examined by scholars, that in fact it is not central to the debate. while the material is interesting, it certainly doesn't belong at the very top of the 'background' section of the article. there is discussion elsewhere in the article of the matter of rebellion, to which this new material may be relevant; however, it seems rather far removed from the ostensible topic of this article, and appears to be original research/synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not accuse me of original research for a subject wiki ALREADY HAS AN ARTICLE ON. That article includes material about the Magna Carta and the New Hampshire Constitution.

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


 * The top part of the section where I added the material was not mine but talked about scholarly debate and as it has been up for a while, I assumed it had been accepted by other editors. I considered it no better or worse then the "republican ideology" haze that it replaced. I followed its lead.


 * This issue is central to the debate because the Second Amendment protects the right to legal self defense. A part of that right is legal self defense against tyrants and tyranny. That portion of the right is called the "right of lawfull rebellion" or the "right of revolution" or the "right to revolt" and other similar titles. It is little discussed because nobody in any position of power wants it be discussed. Most scholarships are now funded by government and if there is one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that no government will fund a study showing its citizens have the legal right to rebel against it. Please advise where a small section on this subject can be added without your objection. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it is original research based upon the first sentence. again, "A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars on both sides of the gun control issue, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfull rebellion against unjust governments.". who makes this claim that it is central to the debate, other than you? Anastrophe (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok! No statement on whether it is central to the debate. How about a statement that it is "relevant to the debate".141.154.110.173 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * if there are reliable sources that say that, sure. but its relevance - in my opinion - is not that notable. there's no question it's a genuine topic of discourse, but mostly of academic import, rather than to the 'feet-on-the-street' arguments made for and against gun control/gun rights these days. Anastrophe (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please notice the term MY GREAT OBJECTION in the quote below from Patrick Henry who by then had served two terms as the governor of Virginia, the most powerful state in the Union. During those terms this man was either the MOST POWERFUL MAN in the 13 original states, or the SECOND most powerful, depending on whether the president under the Articles of Confederation had more power then the governor of Virginia. Government control of arms was to him not an minor matter. This man was so concerned about this right that he gave it precedence over the right to free speech, jury trial, and freedom of religion, none of which were then protected by the Bill of Rights.

My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.


 * Have your concerns now been met that this subject is relevant to the debate by a citation to a figure worthy of respect?

141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that your concerns have been satisfied. I added the material to a new subsection of the article. Also I am using the world central as MY GREAT OBJECTION fits that more then the word relevant.141.154.110.173 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * um, you're moving awfully fast for an encyclopedia. assuming an editors concerns have been satisfied merely because an interval of silence has transpired is not particularly collaborative. my concerns remain. it is not a question of whether mr patrick henry was a figure worthy of respect, it is a matter of whether there are reliable sources that maintain that this statement by patrick henry is relevant to the historical background and source of the second amendment. there likely are. find them. editor's opinions of the relevance of material is only useful insofar as there are reliable sources that agree. Anastrophe (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for any delay - see below for reason. The quote was made during the Virginia debate on whether to accept or reject the Constitution. Virginia was one of the states demanding that a Bill of Rights be included. The second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The connection should be obvious and does not need a Mad Hatter to confirm it. See above for clarification of the reference.

What is the relevance of citing New Hampshire's State constitution, but not that of any other State? SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many? Most? All? states include language stating that the people have a right to defend their lives, liberty and property. New Hampshire spells it out in the plainest language possible that the right included fighting an unjust government.


 * Or better said, what is the relevance of any state constitution here in the federal second amendment article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a bit more relevance then the stuff currently included under Bliss.4.154.237.88 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the Kentucky State Constitution is equally off topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that there is a reliable and verifiable source claiming otherwise. In the early days of the republic, the 2A were clearly interpreted as protecting a right to keep and bear even concealed arms.  That changed later, but it is still part of the history of the Second Amendment.  SaltyBoatr's tired reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to claim something is "off topic" here; rather, his refusal to accept reliable and verifiable sources shows the real problem.  As does his continuous edit warring with the community on any edit that he personnally doesn't approve, prior to the edit being done.  Discussion of the relevance of the 2A history linked to prior state constitutions would be entirely appropriate, with the proper sourcing in this article, of course.  Yaf (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disputing Yafs deletion of Section on Right of Revolution being irrelevant to Second Amendment. History shows that the Founding Fathers were leery of giving all control of guns to a central government as it would lessen the peoples ability to resist tyrants. This isue is CENTRAL to the Second Amendment.141.154.9.241 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Right to revolt called "insurrectionist theory" by Joyce Foundation talking head Carl Bogus

What is even more repugnant then a people going to war against their own government is sit back to let that government turn them into slaves.

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.21/default.asp

On a different topic, I read Justice Scalia’s opinion with both great interest and trepidation to see whether he embraced insurrectionist theory, that is, the argument that the Founders adopted the Second Amendment as a check against governmental tyranny. What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law – not to mention traditional conservatism – than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government? Nonetheless, this theory has animated much of the individual right literature. Its popularity has undoubtedly disturbed the sleep of giants on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely, insurrectionism has had both James Madison and Edmund Burke spinning in their graves.68.160.176.7 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive "concealed carry" and excessive reliance on guncite.com
The article already gives too much weight giving background for concealed carry theory, made worse by this recent edit. There is excessive legal hypothesis using ancient obscure state court cases found on www.guncite.com. Consider that no reliable source considers that state courts are bound by the federal 2A. Certainly, looking hard enough you can find mentions in state court rulings saying otherwise, but these curiosities are notable in their exception, rather than their relevance. The article gives the illusion that these anomalous state court (Bliss, and Nunn) carry weight, and no evidence (other than guncite.com) is given that they actually carry any weight what-so-ever. This is un-encyclopedic and appears to violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * please explain how a single courtesy link constitutes "excessive reliance on guncite.com". please quantify "too much weight" using objective metrics. please quantify "excessive legal hypothesis" using objective metrics. considering that there is no claim in the article that state courts are bound by the federal 2a, it seems you're arguing against something that is not there. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I get an impression that editors attracted to this article tend to do their research on the internet and that because www.guncite.com has a high Google page rank score that indeed www.guncite.com exerts a systemic bias to the content of this page. Let me guess, will you doggedly disagree with me again?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * probably a large number of editors do a lot of research on the internet, considering that this is wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and the internet has vast resources available. but that's not the point. your opening sentence is meaningless. i'll ask again: "please explain how a single courtesy link constitutes "excessive reliance on guncite.com". you have not answered that question. i'm hoping for a direct answer, it would be helpful. i'd also enjoy the courtesy of direct answers to my other queries. random claims of "excessive", "too much" etc have been made repeatedly, for quite a long time, and it has been requested repeatedly that you quantify these claims. absent objective metrics, what are we to suppose of your claims? they seem to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. also, it need not be pointed out that your last sentence does not AGF. please try to frame the discussion in a civil tongue. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please explain why you don't consider www.guncite.com to be a reliable source. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How can we know who publishes www.guncite.com? It appears entirely anonymous, and appears to be an advocacy website.  Does it meet the requirements of WP:V?  Answer those questions and I will be able to answer your question.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nunn was cited in Heller. The Supreme Court therefore thought it relevant. Bliss was referenced but only in a footnote. Ward was never mentioned even in a footnote. If obscure mean no one looks at it, then Ward gets cut first from the article, followed by Bliss and then Nunn. If Nunn gets cut I will check and see if the other cases referenced in the current version of the article are also "obscure" and not considered in the Heller opinion. If they are so obscure as not to merit even a footnote in Heller, I will ask that they get cut as well, being even more obscure then Nunn.


 * Interpreting obiter dictum from court documents is notoriously difficult requiring legal expertise, and doing so in this article runs the risk of violating WP:SYN policy. Is there a reliable secondary source to confirm that this interpretation is verified and not misinterpreted or lost out of context?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which part of "Nunn was cited in Heller" did you miss?68.160.141.162 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: The Heller opinion reference the same quotes from Nunn as currently in the article. From Heller

''In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:''

''“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”''68.163.105.178 (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems
These pro-gun POV push problems should be reworded using neutral terms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph, it has four footnotes, and all four point to cherry picked quotes directly from Heller giving focus to pro-gun talking points. This is WP:SYN. The 2A is much more than these four pro-gun snippets found in Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With the intention of WP:Bold I just floated as a trial balloon a go back to a relatively stable version of the introduction from earlier this year, updated to include mention of Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the wording of the revised Introduction. For example, the revised wording had referred to the Second Amendment as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. It includes references to Heller and Cruikshank, so readers will know where the amendment stands legally. I find the revised Introduction to be acceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this amendment is part of the story... but now the lead only addresses the controversy. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When I check expert opinion, I see that there is a consensus that what lies in the future, after Heller, is years of litigation to settle the confusion. There is mostly controversy in this story. See the Wilkerson article in the Virginia Law Review and George Will's opinion piece "Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. ... Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right.". Not to mention the unsettled question of Incorporation. The introduction giving attention to the controversy about the 2A is apropos, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine for the intro to bring up the controversy, but the amendment itself should factor more prominently. The current lead would be much more appropriate for an article on Politics of the second amendment or something. This article (and its lead), however, should focus on the amendment itself, of which the controversy is just one part. These were some awfully controversial edits, and I don't see that any consensus was reached as to their content (and one judge does not make a consensus, either). Please revert your edits so that we can work on revisions here on the talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of reversion, simply propose an Introduction. The article is in flux, so it won't matter what the Introduction says currently. There's enough tags on this article that nobody will rely on it for anything. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that SaltyBoatr has inserted an NPOV tagline. What are the issues remaining with the article to merit this tagline? The ablative absolute and prefatory clause discussion has been added. Yaf (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extensive discussion of NPOV problems in the talk page above, with issues still unresolved. We also would benefit from a discussion to establish a baseline of what is the neutrality balance point should be. We also need to re-confirm that the proper balance point is that found in the balance of the reliable sourcing, not that of the personal opinions of the interested wiki-editors. This is such a tricky proposition because so much is written from an advocacy position, especially that published and selectively re-published online. I suggest that we look to a neutral scholar as a model for the 'middle' neutrality tone, and Saul Cornell comes to mind as being able to fairly describe both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saul Cornell is not the paragon of evenhandedness, leaning rather severely toward the direction that you have typically advocated, to the exclusion of other points of view. This is not the neutral balance point for the article, although it probably seems that way to you. The article as presently written is probably about as neutrally written as it can be, with what is now more of a collective rights flavor that what it had a few months ago, contrary even to what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller, and contrary even to Cornell's "civic right" tone, which I have tried to incorporate as well. The 9th Circuit Court tone that now permeates the article is not the neutral balance point, but it has been skewed that way to try and reach wording that can be lived with by all active editors, such that the POV tagline could be removed, amd such that the article includes all major points of view, whether totally current or not, as judged against current judicial rulings. Skewing the wording of the article further, in an anti-rights direction, to the now largely-abandoned collective interpretation, while pushing an anti-rights agenda more strongly, would mean the article would definitely become perpetually tagged with POV tagline warnings by editors who see this differently than you do. That should not be our goal. The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with, without need of POV tagline warnings, rather than to a "balance point" that is a collection of talking points of Paul Helmke or Chris Cox. Yaf (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yaf asserts: "The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with".  No, this is not negotiable.  Re-read WP:NPOV.  The goal is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."  It has nothing to do with "what we can live with" or what we find to be personally acceptable.


 * Therefore, I ask: Please show an example of some reliable sourcing that is written neutrally.  I pointed to the work of Saul Cornell.  Yaf found that inappropriate.  Yaf, please suggest (if you can) an alternate reliable source which you see as written neutrally.  I would like to see an example in the reliable sourcing of what you view as neutral, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Then by virtue that "Of the approximately forty scholarly articles published in legal journals between 1983 and 1998, the vast majority have tended to take an individual rights position on the Second Amendment.[42]", then we should scrub the collective rights viewpoint further from the article, to reflect the prominence of both viewpoints.  I can do this.  Thanks for pointing out that the balance point for the article should not be arrived at by reaching a balance point that active editors can "live with" reflecting the prominence of viewpoints that they have found and documented, but rather by a preponderance of the published sources.  By the cited NPOV policy, then, editors should therefore also scrub the now abandoned ablative absolute interpretation, as well, from the article as it is not a prevalent viewpoint, either, in these same scholarly articles, but has become an extreme minority viewpoint.  Sounds like we have reached an agreement by which we can fix the NPOV problems that are remaining.  Looks clear to me what needs to be done to get this article back into Good Article status, where it was before we added all the collective rights minority viewpoints.  Thanks!  Yaf (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between academic history and law journal history. Both should be covered in the article, but the wording must be neutral and reflect the criticisms that the law office history has been revisionist and adversarial.  See Rakove and Cornell and the Kyvig paper.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These are only two articles, reflecting a minority viewpoint among the preponderance of published papers, that by the NPOV policy you cited earlier, should not be given prominence beyond the majority of the 40 articles. A minor mention of their points of view would be all that would be consistent with the NPOV policy you cited in covering these points. Yaf (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which 40 articles? Be specific please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am convinced that this article will always have a neutrality tag on it. SaltyBoatr seems to have an ever growing list of grievances. I just don't see a time in which he will accept this article as being neutral, unless we allow him to have complete control of it. This is not meant to be insulting; just an observation. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet again, SMP0328 focuses on my personal character. Stop.  Can you point to an example in the reliable sourcing which is neutrally written, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Salty Boatr objects to the neutrality of the people who wanted the protection included in the Second Amendment, the people that defend the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. Doesn't sound as ALL neutral to me!4.154.239.28 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This incessant series of anonymous IP attacks on my character is just wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No neutrality tag will be needed shortly, once the minority viewpoints regarding collective rights are scrubbed to reflect the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources. SB has pointed the way for us to re-achieve Good Article status. Yaf (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice, Yaf did not answer my request to point to an example reliable source that fairly describes both points of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bumping this. Yaf, can you please point to an example of an reliable source that sets a neutrality tone which you find acceptable? This would be helpful in order for us to better communicate during our discussion of our disagreement of the correct neutrality balance. Other editors too, please discuss examples of properly weighted neutrality found in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatR's: "push problems should be reworded using neutral terms"; "I see that...what lies in the future...is years of litigation to settle the confusion"; "We [should] establish a baseline of what the neutral balance point whould be"; "show an example of some reliable sourcing that is written neutrally"; "law journal history...should be covered in the article, but the wording must be neutral"; "Can you point to an example...which is neutrally written, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV?"; "Can you...point to an example...that sets a neutrality tone...you find acceptable?" From that, it is impossible to tell what topic SaltyBoatR is seeking neutrality for.

From the Revolutionary War to Heller, individuals had and were exercising their right to keep and bear arms, in every state in the union. To presume that Heller, 232 years after that War for Independence, discovered this individual right in the 2A is thus silly. Heller simply held the 2A's "shall not be infringed" applied to individual type weapons as well as militia-type. From U.S. v. Miller (1939) to Heller (2008), the Court's position on the 2A was that it only prohibited federal infringement on militia-type weapons. Now, after Heller, the prohibition includes all weapons. Thus the 2A article is not about the right, it's about the lack of power, of Congress, to infringe on it. Concerning High Court decisions,"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). The Supreme Court defines "clearly established law" as the "holdings, not dicta, of its decisions," Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). The term "holdings" refers to "the governing legal principle...set forth by the Supreme Court" Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003).

If SaltyBoatR's quest for neutrality is about the Heller decision, there is none. The Heller decision is law, Congress is now forbidden to infringe on all types of weapons. If his insistence on neutrality is about the right to keep and bear arms, which every American has at birth, that is also silly. The right is not granted by the Constitution, nor is it dependent thereon for its existence (Cruikshank, at 553). If his search for neutrality is about whether people should have the right, it is misplaced. The proper forum would be: Right to keep and bear arms (which is a general article divorced from law). The 2A is fixed law, whether people like it or not isn't relative to the 2A article. SaltyBoatR should disclose which of these topics he has in mind, so we could respond more specifically. (Truwik (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC))


 * As a follow-up, I would ask SaltyBoatR this question: Do you believe "right to keep and bear arms" and "Second Amendment" are synonymous expressions? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Discussions of personal opinions do not belong on article talk pages, feel free to ask your question on my user talk page. Again, editors have a duty to set aside their personal opinions, and edit articles based only on reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe this article should treat the right to keep and bear arms to be synonymous with the Second Amendment? SMP0328. (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think there are a variety of views found in reliable sourcing, some of the most famous are those of Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Cottrol, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Saul Cornell, David Bodenhamer, Richard Uviller and William Merkel. All these views should be explained in the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether SaltyBoatR will answer that, or not, I say: No. The 2A is not the source of the right, its sole purpose was to prohibit the federal government from infringement, which Webster defines as: "an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege." That isn't a 'personal opinion,' the Cruikshank Court, at p. 553, said: "This is not a right granted by the Constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Cruikshank, was affirmed by Presser, at 265, and re-affirmed by Heller, in footnote 23. Supreme Court decisions are "clearly established law," Williams v. Taylor (2000) at 412; S.C. "holdings' are "the governing legal principle(s) set forth by the Supreme Court," Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) at 71. Arguing the pros and cons of gun-rights in the 2A article would give readers the false impression that the 2A is the source of the right, when it isn't. (Truwik (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * SaltyBoatR's answer: "there are a variety of views found in...," again avoids the question. But in naming seven "reliable" sources, he has answered it indirectly, all 7 have spoken and/or written about the 'right', not the infringement on it, thus he apparently believes the 'right to keep and bear arms' and the Second Amendment are one-and-the-same topic. However the operative clause of the 2A is: "shall not be infringed," the 'right' is simply the objective complement of the past-tense active verb 'infringed.' That is, the 'right' is not the subject of the 2A. It could well have stated: "Because Militias are a necessity, the right of the people to life, liberty and property, shall not be infringed." Surely no one would suggest such an amendment granted those rights.


 * To further pinpoint the article's subject matter, it would be informative, for SaltyBoatR and all editors to answer the question: To whom, does "shall not be infringed" apply? Thanks again. (Truwik (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Another way to approach this question is to compare the seven sources I identified to the source of your idea. What is the reliable source for your idea?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Wm. Marbury and 3 other prospective justices of the peace moved the court to instruct James Madison, Secretary of State of the U.S., to deliver to them their several commissions. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall (the first chief justice) as to the power of the Court, stated (at p. 177): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", that is, federal laws, which include the Bill of Rights. The Cruikshank, Presser, U.S. v. Miller and Heller decisions on the 2A are thus fixed, binding law. These cases are reliable sources for what the 2A means. While SaltyBoatR's 'seven sources' may address the 'right' neutrally, they are irrelevant to what the 2A means. It is solely a restriction on Congress that prohibits infringement on the right. It is not the source of the right. Rights are inalienable, they are, in the U.S., inherited from our ancestors. Stated otherwise, the 2A could be repealed and would have no affect whatever on the right. It simply exists. My quoting or paraphrasing these High Court decisions is not my 'idea' it is historical lawful fact. WP-Pillar 2) "Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view...it means citing verifiable, authoritative sources...especially on controversial topics." I have done that. (Truwik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I am not very interested in your armchair interpretation of the meaning of primary court documents. There is a high risk that your interpretation might suffer from selection bias, faulty analysis or improper synthesis.  See WP:PSTS.  I agree that your thesis might be excellent, and if so, it should easy to confirm it in high quality reliable secondary or tertiary sources.    Have you found a reliable secondary or tertiary source confirming your assertion?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again SaltyBoatR ducks the question. "Shall not be infringed" is a lawful command to some entity. To whom or what does it apply? Romanian Gypsies? Japan? Stealthy Ferrets? I should thing that would be the first question readers of this article would ponder. Indeed, Webster says an encyclopedia is: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge." He defines 'comprehensive' as: "Covering completely." That this is a 'particular branch of knowledge' is a given. If 2A editors cannot agree, on to whom "shall not" applies, how could they reach a consensus on what the 2A means? Whom it affects?


 * Supreme Court decisions on the 2A are 'verifiable, authoritative sources', there is no higher authority. Heller doesn't need 'interpretation' it means what it plainly stated. Just yesterday (2-26-09) the U.S. Senate voted (63-36) to attach an amendment to their S. 160 bill, which will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's city council. Obviously, Congress accepts Heller as binding law on them, and citizens under their jurisdiction. Editors who refuse to answer the question: "To whom does 'shall not be infringed' apply" are indicating they don't know, which sends the wrong message. Answering that question is vital to the accuracy and thus the success of the article. (Truwik (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I for one vote for adding the old school meaning of "infringed" into the article. It seems that at least one "editor" (aka censor) might benefit as he can't quite figure out how to crack open a dictionary, or even check an online one for that matter. Makes me wonder how he found his way to this article.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor%5B2%5D http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe141.154.110.173 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


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

I agree with tc2011, the article shouldn't start with "most contested," readers looking for a pleasant neutral lead-in would read no further. And saying the 2A "protects a right," by itself, could be misconstrued. Protects the right from whom? At a glance, the article appears to be about the "right to keep and bear arms" and the controversy over it. I suggest this:

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that proects the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. Rights are inalienable, but the Founding Fathers feared some future Congress might misconstrue the powers that were delegated, and use them to regulate, or even confiscate, their arms."

That's historical fact, and would be more reassuring. The key word in the amendment is 'infringed' not 'right,' putting it in, right up front, would encourage first-time visitors to read further. (Truwik (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm more hard core then you are, so while I'm OK with your first sentence I would prefer something like, "The Founding Fathers by protecting the right to keep and bear arms, placed a roadblock to future tyrants by insuring then the citizenry would have the means to resist them through the use of their personal arms" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This suggested 'future tyrants...resist them through us of arms' is no doubt language the Founders used concerning the King of Great Britain's "War against us" which eventually required a Declaration of Independence and war against them. But the first U.S. Congress wasn't viewed from that perspective, many were veterans of that war, some were Founders, and they all knew the amendment wasn't directed at them personally. It was a stern reminder to future federal 'tyrants' that they were not to encroach upon that right. The words chosen were what the Framers actually said about the amendment's purpose - words from-the-horse's-mouth so to speak. (Truwik (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC))


 * The Founding fathers were quote aware that one day Congress could turn tyrannical. They were quite aware that human nature is such that at some point SOMEONE (or a group of someones) will try a power grab (most likely by means of slow encroachment) unless there are roadblocks in place to stop him (or them) and that one of those roadblocks was the private possession of arms. Patrick Henry for instance talks about a revolution where "the enemy" is the federal government.

"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison

"The concentrating these [legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." Thomas Jefferson

Experience [has shown] that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of nobilie spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. - Fayetteville NC Gazette 10-12-1789

The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.? Patric Henry68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen, and Amen! I would suggest that this Article needs a Section Heading: "Constitutional Convention" with sub-Sections "Why many Founders opposed a Bill of Rights" and "Why some Refused to Ratify the Constitution Without One", etc. (Truwik (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree that that the article needs more material with respect to the ratification conventions. At one point it did have that material, but when the article was downsized most of it went away. Funny how relevant material gets cut on a regular basis, but crap like the Ward trial remained. You'd almost think that someone was trying to control the articles content. ;-) 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In January, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 45 (the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act). The bill honored 16-year-old Blair Holt, who was killed on May 10, 2007 when he shielded a female classmate from gunfire on a Chicago city bus - with his own body - a real hero. The bill requires registration of all firearms in the U.S.; new purchases of firearms would require a federal license, with a photo ID, and a thumbprint, which could be revoked for a number of reasons. Training for firearm ownership, with a fee, is required; sale, transfer, loss or theft must be reported within 72 hours; and failure to comply with any of these provisions would result in fines and/or imprisonment. The truly amazing part of this, is that it comes on the heels of Heller, which just held a similar law unconstitutional, on his own turf - a Constitution he swore to uphold and defend - unless "shall not be infringed' means "may almost be destroyed." With such continuing shenanigans, this Article needs a "Stay Tuned - It ain't over..." Section, where we can post the latest intrigue. Mr. Rush's bill is still in committee. (Truwik (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * All becomes understandable if you take the view that those in powe aren't there to serve and protect, but to feather their nests at your expense. Feathering the nest includes going on a power trip and taking your stuff. As usual, criminals would rather rob you when you aren't able to defend yourself then when you can. Reducing your chance to get a gun reduces the chance you can effectively resist.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

heavy handed revert or WP:BRD?
This recent wholesale revert by Yaf appears heavy handed. It would be preferable to be more selective, and to take it easy on the blanket reverts with misleading edit summaries. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It appears to be the BOLD, revert, discuss method working as expected.  Thus far, we have Philo-Centinel making a bold edit and Yaf reverting that edit.  Next, I expect that we will see Philo-Centinel and/or Yaf (and likely others) discuss the edit and its rationale on this very talk page.--Hamitr (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Yaf reverted 100% of the edit.   And Yaf's 'discussion' was only in his edit summary.  I see that some elements of Philo-Centinel edits were worthwhile, and not deserving a 100% revert.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that some elements of Philo-Centinel's edits were worthwhile, then there is nothing to keep you from starting discussion about those elements/edits. In fact, I think most editors would agree that such a course of action would be much more productive than this thread.--Hamitr (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit by Philo-Centinel removed cited article content and replaced cited article content with uncited POV commentary. The WP:BRD cycle is clearly at play here.  Philo-Centinel made a bold edit, I reverted, with a very clear edit summary of why I reverted, and now it is time for discussion, if Philo-Centinel wishes to discuss.  Meanwhile, SaltyBoatr, why do you propose to remove cited content and replace such with uncited POV commentary?  (For which I am surprised, being that Philo-Centinel wrote a POV commentary with an individual interpretation, that was Original Research, and that you typically oppose all content other than militia-interpretation content.)  Yaf (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I typically oppose? This discussion has no place constructive to go after that offensive statement.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I take it then that you have now actually read the proposed edit. OK.  Looks like no problem, then, to omit this content, unless another editor sees this differently.  Yaf (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * False. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, much like Congress not reading another stimulus bill before voting for it, you are likewise not reading the proposed content before likewise "voting" for its inclusion here in this article. OK.  I get it.  Yaf (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the different readings of Blackstone I pointed out were evidenced in Heller. How could this be called original research or represent a particular POV when I explained that there were two opposing points of view and both were articulated in Heller. Once again this only serves to underscore why this particular article has no legitimacy in the view of anyone but the gun rights trolls who seem to spend all of their time on this article--that is when they are not looking for Joyce funded conspiracies under every bed or rock.

If you wish to see scholarly evidence of the influence of Cornell's work just take a look at the Harvard Law Review essays on Heller by Sunstein and Siegel. Both articles cite his work. I guess the Harvard Law Review is not a serious source like Stephen Halbrook or David HardyPhilo-Centinel (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * your tone is pretty aggressive. you removed cited material, and replaced it with unsourced prose. you also added a question to the article, that's expressly not considered encyclopedic per WP:MOS. you're not exactly helping your own legitimacy by referring to your fellow editors as "gun rights trolls". are you familiar with the wikipedia core policy of assume good faith? Anastrophe (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More than two versions
This is in response to the request by to discuss this change on the talk page. The edit summary for SMP0328.'s reversion says "the article should include at least one version of the amendment's text". When I made the change, it did contain one version in the introductory paragraph, but ironically this has been deleted in the meantime, the reason given being that two versions of the text are already shown in the Text section :-). I don't have any preference for whether the text should be given in the introduction or in a later section; what's important, though, is that the current version of the article is false. There are not two versions, but a large number of versions, as described in the source I'd referenced. I had tried to summarize the complicated situation described in that source in the two sentences "The versions used at various times by the ratifying states, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the executive differ both between and within these branches. There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present." Perhaps there is a better way to summarize this information, but simply saying "There are two versions of the text of the Second Amendment" and then quoting two particular versions when there are so many others is just wrong -- unless, that is, you think the source I referenced is mistaken. Joriki (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting reference. It seems to be defining every error in transcription ever found in an official document as a different "versions" of the Second Amendment. For instance, it asserts that the Executive Branch uses either a two comma or three comma version when the example of a two comma version is in an appendix of a document about Court Martials. Seems like an issue where these other versions need to be weighed against the two discussed here, the version approved by Congress and the version ratified by the States. We could change the wording to be more inclusive, simply pointing out that the version sent to the states was different rather than saying that there were two versions, but that might be compared to saying that there are more than two results from a coin flip. Celestra (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusive is better. I prefer adding to an article rather than subtracting from it. I would continue to show the different versions, because articles about amendment to the U.S. Constitution always have a text section. How about referring to the currently shown versions as examples of the slight punctuation differences? SMP0328. (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, referring to them as examples would be good. Celestra, you talk about "the version ratified by the States" -- the reference says that four different versions were ratified by different states. I agree that its basis for talking about different versions used in the executive branch is a bit weak, but the ratified versions are all quoted from the same book and refer directly to the ratification acts. Is there any evidence to the contrary that suggests that the states all ratified the same version? Joriki (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles. Fair enough, though, I had recalled that there were thirteen copies created at a single time and sent to the various States to be ratified, but I don't have a reference that says as much. Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles in copies in official documents without giving undue weight to the variety relative to the current two? Or would it be better to see if we can find a reference that describes the copies sent to the states to see if there were additional variations in those documents? Celestra (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles". The reference cites the "Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1786-1870, Derived from the Records, Manuscripts and Rolls Deposited in the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State (1894)", which you can view online here. (If you use "Flip Book", click outside the page on the other pages to flip more than one page at a time.) I'm not an expert on evaluating sources like this, but it does seem to contain the text of the ratified amendments, not just "details around the ratification".
 * What does "the current two" refer to? In what sense are any two copies more current than others? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'm new to this subject and would like to know.)
 * You ask "Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles [...]?". I'd tried doing this for the commas with the sentence "There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present.", which I think summarizes the variations pretty succinctly. Perhaps one could do something similar for the capitalizations and the articles. Joriki (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Joriki. I was making a distinction between the two versions currently presented in the article and the other versions we would like to include. The two currently presented are the version approved by Congress and the version sent to the States for ratification. Some of the additional versions are versions in the documents recording the formal ratification from each State. (That was what I meant by "state documents.") It's not unreasonable to argue that the versions in the official documents recording the ratifications are of similar significance to the one passed by Congress, but I'm concerned that including many versions of the text gives undue weight to a section that is really just an interesting side note. One way we could capture the fact of the variety might be: "There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Among them are the version approved by Congress...." Would that be agreeable? Celestra (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Celestra -- thanks for the explanation and for the proposal, which I like. If you include the reference with the many versions, people who are interested can explore the versions further. Joriki (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Case law vs Judicial interpretation
To Yaf - don't know why you want to keep Ward in the article, but your change has only highlighted the fact that Ward does not belong where it is currently located.

There is NO Judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment in Ward.68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an interpretation specifically of the Second Amendment in Ward attorney arguments referenced to Bliss made by a former attorney general of the US, the lead attorney in Ward, per cites. Looks like a clear reason for including this cited content to me, being it is directly related to judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment arising out of court cases.  Yaf (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An attorney "uses" judicial interpretation, he does not make it. That holds true for even a former attorney general. Unless there is some text in the Ward JUDGEMENT itself about the Second Amendment, there is no "judicial interpretation". The material currently in the article has not one word of "judicial interpretation" in it from the Ward case itself, and is wholly composed of NON-Judicial "opinion". While NON-Judicial opinion as a place under commentary, it has no place under "case law" OR "judicial interpretation".68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But, as Wikipedia editors, we cannot directly interpret primary documents, in this case, the Bliss or Ward judgements themselves, and ascertain their direct relevance to the Second Amendment in and of themselves, for the judgements are not, in and of themselves, useful for any interpretation of themselves and for establishing their importance relative to understanding the Second Amendment. But, the opinion of the former US Atty General regarding these cases and their relevance to the Second Amendment is entirely appropriate for inclusion in this article for establishing interpretations of the Second Amendment based upon such judicial interpretations.  This way, no original research is being done, of primary documents, that we must interpret. The focus here is on interpretations of the Second Amendment, for inclusion in this article.  Looked at this way, this content clearly has a valid place under a section regarding "Judicial interpretation" of the topic of this article, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This article is not about Bliss or Ward, but about the Second Amendment.  Agreed?  Yaf (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I think you've just beaten out Salty Boatr on the doublespeak department and probably the bad faith department as well. The situation is simple, If there is no mention of the Second Amendment in the JUDGEMENT, then there is no judicial interpretation going on. If there is no judicial interpretation, then there is no reason to include the material. Comprende?

BTW: and speaking of doublespeak and doublethink I have a quote I'd like inserted in the article by George Orwell, any objections?

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. ~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)