Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 18

Milnivlek
RE:Your complaint on unsourced/unsupported opinion - as follows

''In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.[citation needed] If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.[citation needed]''

I agree that the above needs referencing and that some sort of reasonable time period should be set for anyone wanting that material in the article to find sourcing. I believe that either 1 or 2 weeks should be sufficient time for anyone wanting to keep the material to find some sort of backup. If nobody bothers to get sourcing by the end of that time period the material should be deleted as nobody finds it worth defending.

Do you vote for a 1 week, 2 week period or would you prefer another reasonable time frame?68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the 'time period' isn't subject to vote. formal fact tags are dated, eg (which i've done for the fact tags in question, which were added today). there's a reason the resolution is only the month - editors need to be provided time to find cites when something has been challenged. a month is usually considered the bare minimum, unless the material is exceedingly controversial. on the other hand, after two or three months, i strongly support scrubbing unsourced, challenged material. there's a real problem on wikipedia of unsourced, challenged material lingering interminably. i routinely scrub challenged material that's a year old, two years old. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The material in question, is at best tangential to the Second Amendment. Who really cares how much research and how many papers were written on it?68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * shift in scholarly opinion is certainly directly relevant.Anastrophe (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me know how many other wiki articles on Constitutional Amendments consider shifts in scholarly opinion worth of inclusion. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's your argument? why not just use the third amendment as an argument that all the amendment articles should be about five brief paragraphs long? what other articles contain, is not a measure against which changes to the article under discussion can be made. that's per wikipedia policy, i should add.Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. We can cut it down to the wording from Cruikshank

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

Toss is a quote or two from Heller that it protects an individual right and be done with it.68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we decide going for two quotes one has to be from the dissent where the dissenters ALSO sate that 2A protects an individual right. The dissenters opposition in about the extent of that right.

From the Stevens dissent

http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/dissent.html

'''The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.'''68.163.98.56 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  "Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."  What are you reading that says this? We can get farther here finding consensus if we stick to ideas founded in reliable sourcing.  I am not saying that your claim is false, I am just saying that you have shown no basis in mainstream reliable sourcing.  Neither am I asking you to explain your reasoning, so please don't waste talk page space on that.  I am asking for you to point to independent sourcing that corroborates your conclusion.   What books are you reading?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am getting straight off of the Stevens dissent. Is that reliable enough for you? Click on the link above and it should be easy to find. It is after all the FIRST paragraph.68.163.98.56 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Direct reading of court documents requires an editor's personal interpretation, analysis and synthesis.  I am looking for reliable secondary or tertiary sourcing.  See WP:PSTS.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really! You don't think the the US Supreme Court is a reliable source of its own opinion?68.163.98.56 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I think that the court documents of the Supreme Court are primary sources as to the Supreme Court rulings.  And, use of primary sources is severely limited per WP:Policy.  And, no matter, if the point you are trying to make exists in the mainstream, it should be easy to find reliable secondary or tertiary sourcing that says the exact same thing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice job of "if you can't win, confuse the issue" but I'm not biting. Have you been able to click on the link provided and confirm that the dissenting opinion states

'''The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.'''68.163.98.56 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I have read the Heller decision, including the dissent. Largely irrelevant anyway, because interpretation, analysis and synthesis of primary sources is against policy here.  Non-negotiable.  Read WP:NOR.  This is a pointless conversation because anything found in the primary document, if worthwhile, can also be found in reliable secondary or tertiary sources.  Start looking.  Quit wasting talk page space.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the dissent state

'''The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.'''68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: You seem to be a bit confused as to what the subject is. The subject is the Second Amendment. Supreme Court commentary and interpretation f teh Second Amendment is a secondary source on that subject. Wiki LOVES secondary sources. They are preferred over all others.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick Heller applied for a registration certificate for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed a lawsuit in the federal district court seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city's ban on handguns violated that right, and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for Heller. The Supreme Court said: We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

SaltyBoatr is right, how could anyone understand that? We do have a clue though, Heller is described as a 'landmark' decision, wherein (for the first time in its history) the U.S. Supreme Court held a law violative of the Second Amendment. And at page 53, opinion, it said: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It's a mystery, but maybe if we all got our heads together... (Truwik (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

An example of "foisting"
Salty Boatr just added a statement that

Since Heller, over eighty lawsuits related to firearms legislation have been decided in federal court.

With the source being a newspaper. I am asking for a more verifiable source for 80 cases settled, such as a listing of court cases. After being told by newspapers for the past 2 years that the housing market has hit bottom, that the stock market has hit bottom, and that there will be no recession, never mind a depression, I am quite leery of newspaper claims to anything. Failure to provide a more verifiable source will be a "foisting" of unverifiable material.141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * except that your discomfort with newspapers is not wikipedia's - nor your fellow editors - concern. newspapers - for the most part - meet WP:V and WP:RS. the policies are compromises in themselves, for example, while the best sources are considered to be scholarly works that have been peer-reviewed, many sources that do not meet that threshhold are entirely valid and acceptable. it's a continuum, from best to least, and most editors find themselves in the middle ground (e.g. reliable websites). the new york times is considered a highly reliable source for many things. not all things, of course, but many. there are many other newspapers that are highly reliable within the context of wp's policies.
 * in a nutshell, you may not like that the new york times is considered a reliable source, but that's irrelevant. it is a reliable source. find a reliable source that counters their claims, and you may have something to work with. right now, 'discomfort' isn't going to take the discussion very far. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll compromise halfway. I want a list of 40 of those 80 cases.141.154.13.150 (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Critique of NY article points out it is full of errors, for instance

http://newledger.com/2009/03/gun-rights-and-the-constitution-was-heller-insignificant/

Let’s start with the most obvious facts which the Times overlooked. On the day that Heller was decided, the citizens of five Chicago suburbs, and of Chicago itself, were prohibited from owning guns. Residents of apartments provided by the San Francisco Housing Authority were prohibited from owning any gun. Within 24 hours of the Heller decision, gun rights organizations—including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)—filed lawsuits against the gun bans.

Today, the residents of San Francisco public housing can own guns in their homes. In four of the five Chicago suburbs (Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka), the handgun bans have been repealed. Yet according to the Times, “So far, Heller is firing blanks.”

BTW:I'm still waiting for that listing of 40 out of 80 cases68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In none of the lawsuits you mentioned did the courts make a ruling favorable of gun rights. The changes in gun law you describe were simple legislative political discretion, and could be revised back at political whim.


 * Court rulings are another thing. I have been keeping track and can specifically identified about 70 post-Heller federal court cases challenging gun laws on 2nd Amendment basis, and all of these rulings have been in favor of the gun bans.  I have hesitated to put these in the article because, in my opinion, direct readings of court documents are original research.  Are you asking me to put a list of 40 rulings of these 70 cases into the article?  Alternately, we can wait until Professor's Winkler's article gets published in June in the journal of the UCLA Law Review, as he has counted 80 post-Heller 2A cases upholding gun laws.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion does not match mine. Please list 40 of the 80 cases. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will start adding them to the article then, bear with me this will take a few days. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a handful of new cases, giving one example case for each major precedence catagory, "felon in possession", "misdemeanor domestic abuse", "sawed off shotgun", "unregistered firearm", "school zone", "machine gun", "firearm importation", "concealed weapon without permit", "straw purchase", "post office", "illegal alien", "users of controlled substances". (With a few more to go.) In all these instances there are multiple cases, but I hesitate to include them all redundantly because this section should not become a giant list, so I am leaning towards just giving one example of each type.


 * Additionally, the issue of the bail bond cases are out of place curiosities, red herrings here, as bail bonds are subject to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment not the Second Amendment. In other words, the plaintiff argued that their Fifth and Fourteenth 'due process' rights were violated and they did not argue that their Second Amendment right was violated.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not ask for additions to the article, I asked for a listing of 40 of the 80 cases. Above you say you know of 70. If you know of 70, it should be no great hardship to list 40.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to clutter the talk page with my personal research. If you want to confirm the number, the information is easily available to you at a law library, no matter anyway.  What is important is the fact that I have cited the 80 case number count with references to the UCLA Law Review and New York Times.  If you question that these two sources are not reliable sources, feel free to do so.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I want YOU to confirm the number. You made a statement that you knew 70 of those 80 cases. List 40 of them.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * your demand has no merit, in policy or practice. two reliable sources make the statement. for purposes of wikipedia, this article, and this article page, that's all that matters. if you dispute those numbers, find reliable sources that dispute them. your dispute with them here is immaterial. sorry. that's how wikipedia works. Anastrophe (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My demand is based on the fact that the NYT article "conveniently" avoids mention that 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs voided their own gun bans. I consider that "unreliable". Do you?68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Times article actually does mention one of these Chicago Court cases, McDonald v. Chicago, the one which is being appealed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't mention the ones where gun bans were voided.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should that have been mentioned? What happened is that four municipalities voluntarily repealed their handgun ban ordinances, and saved the high cost of fighting the lawsuit in court.  The fifth municipality did fight the lawsuit in court, and won. The handgun ban was ruled constitutional. It is reasonable to guess that the four municipalities could have also won their court cases banning handguns too had they been willing the spend the money on the legal fees.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet again Please list 40 of those 80 cases. You stated you know of 70 of hose 80.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you dispute the reliability of the New York Times and/or the UCLA Law Review, go ahead and do so. I refuse to list my personal research on this talk page WP:NOR, so my answer to your request to list 40 of 80 cases is: No.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * More likely you refuse to post them because you don't have them.68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did identify about 14 representative cases using reliable secondary sourcing. That is not good enough for you?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope! Not good enough. It just means you have 26 to go. A paltry effort if you have records of 70, as you claimed above.68.160.162.23 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it is a valid point that the NYT article conveniently avoids mentioning those lawsuits that were settled out of court. that said, it does not change that the NYT is a reliable source. kopel's opinion piece can be quoted and cited as counterpoint opinion, but is not sufficient to 'invalidate' the NYT article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As counterpoint please add mention in the article that in 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs, gun bans have been repealed. A certain Yaf and a certain SaltyBoatr have gotten the article protected from anon editors, othrwise I would do it myself.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the article? Those 4 of 5 Chigaco suburbs are already prominently mentioned.


 * Quoting Kopel's piece:  "It’s true that, as Winkler points out, federal courts have rejected lots of Second Amendment claims brought by convicted felons, and by persons convicted of domestic violence, or by persons wishing to possess machine guns."  What I take from David Kopel's essay is the fact that there has been a shift of political perception resulting from Heller that has lead to a lessening of the political will behind gun control laws, and this has resulted in the easement of a few local local laws, but the article already describes this fact with undue emphasis. The fact that the NRA cases filed early settled out of court is given too much weight, considering the many dozens of court cases that have followed which ruled upholding the gun bans. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting the article to show that Heller has had minimal impact when even the article itself states that it has had some impact is a breach of POV. Please add reference to 4 of 5 Chicago suburbs rescinding gun bans as the other side of the story in order top restore neutral POV.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * RE SaltyBoatrs statement that the issue with the Chicago suburbs is already mentioned in the article per the following Have you looked at the article? Those 4 of 5 Chigaco suburbs are already prominently mentioned. I looked and could not find any mention in the article as alleged by SaltyBoatr. I think one of us needs a new pair of glasses and I don't think it's me.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looked again and found some mention, although I would say that the Chicago suburbs vacating their own gun laws is "prominently hidden" and not prominently mentioned as one has to go and read the backup from the footnotes to find out what is going on. The article itself makes no mention of Chicago suburbs and makes a vague reference to NRA lawsuits.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Background - English Common Law
The: "This dispute over the scope of this right was discussed in District of Columbia v. Heller", here, is flat wrong. The Heller Court said "a prefatory clause [militia] does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause [infringement]". This had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'scope of this right.' Even if it did, it shouldn't be under 'English Common Law.' This is a classic example of twisting words to agree with one's agenda. (Truwik (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I have to disagree. The Heller opinion covers a lot of ground. The following is only one example of the Supreme Court discussing the "scope of the right" in that opinion.

'''If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.''' 68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Court was reminding 'petitioners and the dissent' that if their position is 'only for military purposes' they can't have the militia 'killing game' as individuals, unconnected with a militia, would do. While this indirectly involved the militia-scope of the right, it was denounced as crazy. (Truwik (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The court is addressing the collective rights viewpoint, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bar arms can only be exercised by bona fide members of a government sanctioned and organized militia. And you are right, this viewpoint was denounced as "crazy".68.160.162.23 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Heller Court cases listed by SaltyBoatr
The link provided to show that they exist (aka the citation), goes to an abstract of an article which mentions none of these court cases. The article itself can be downloaded and a check of that shows these cases are not discussed but are merely mentioned in the footnotes. I therefore find the citation lacking. While I am not asking that they be removed, I do ask that a better citation be provided.

An example of an acceptable citation would be the following link to US v Artez

http://openjurist.org/389/f3d/1106/united-states-v-artez 68.160.162.23 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to list so many cases in that subsection? Anybody who is in prison on a weapons charge will use Heller in an effort to get the charges dismissed or conviction overturned. Most of these attempts will be frivolous and will quickly fail. The article shouldn't give an exhausting list of such cases. I believe it would be better to remove those new added cases from that subsection and simply refer to them via the source provided by SaltyBoatr. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the listing is excessive. A large paragraph listing the various rules upheld would serve the same purpose, be more readable, and take up quite a bit less space. Something similar to what Winkler did on the bottom of page 14 and top of page 15 of his "Hellers Catch 22" article. To see click on link, hit download (look carefully - small print), then select the nearest download site.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=135922568.160.162.23 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would make that change, but first I want to hear from SaltyBoatr; no need to start an edit war. :) SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am open to reformatting, but the listing is already abridged to show just one case for each precedent for law upheld after Heller. Each precedent needs to be mentioned, maybe the case names could be moved to footnotes to make the section more compact?  And, as I said, the two similar bail bond cases are Fifth Amendment challenges, and can be moved to that other article as they are misplaced in the Second Amendment article.   Also, the voluntary out of court settlements are not really rulings, and set no precedence what-so-ever, and are therefore nothing more than curiosities or red herrings.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * if they are mentioned or commented upon in reliable sourcing, and are considered notable in that they accomplished overturning gun bans based on second amendment challenges, surely you would not suggest that such mention must be excluded from this article? i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? Anastrophe (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What 'reliable sourcing' are you reading? You assert: "...considered notable in that they accomplished...", who is the "they"? When I check for notability I see notability given in the advocacy weblogs and in the advocacy press, but not elsewhere.  Point to some WP:RS examples of notability please.  And what was accomplished?  The reporting at the time said that what was accomplished was the saving of court costs: "Fighting in court to try to keep the law would cost money the village does not have".  It is a logical fallacy found in the advocacy blogs and press that this was a legal victory, when in the mainstream press it was reported as legal intimidation of a deep pocket lawsuit.  Consider that the one lawsuit of these five NRA lawsuits that actually was ruled upon by a court was lost and under current Illinois legal precedent, handgun bans are legal.  The other four lawsuits which were settled and withdrawn to save embarrassment and legal fees hardly amounts to a notable accomplishment.  Tell me, I ask again, what sourcing are you reading?  I answered your question. I have asked you several questions, please be civil and answer each.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i guess you missed the first word of my post. i'll repost my query: if they are mentioned or commented upon in reliable sourcing, and are considered notable in that they accomplished overturning gun bans based on second amendment challenges, surely you would not suggest that such mention must be excluded from this article?" now, rather than answering a question with a question, could you first actually answer both my questions? i'd appreciate it.Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, though you would also need to establish notability and the presentation would need to be neutral.  Presently in the article it is not. Now, please answer my questions.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)so, based upon "yes", you're saying that even if notability were established in reliable sourcing, you would suggest that mention of them must be excluded from the article. interesting. my question was procedural, your followup questions were based on a literal reading that overlooked the word "if". so, i have no questions to answer. i still await an answer to my second question, to wit, "i fail to see how an out of court settlement constitutes a "red-herring". can you explain? ". Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion with you remind me of the essay WP:SOUP, all appearances of a talk page tactic of distraction fallacy. I answered your 'red herring' question 14:55 above: "It is a logical fallacy found in the advocacy blogs and press that this was a legal victory, when in the mainstream press it was reported as legal intimidation of a deep pocket lawsuit.  Consider that the one lawsuit of these five NRA lawsuits that actually was ruled upon by a court was lost and under current Illinois legal precedent, handgun bans are legal."  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * my apologies - yes, you did respond, i overlooked it within your reply. my misreading, my mistake. oops. thanks for the reply. i'll note that i have not read any advocacy blogs on the matter. i do my best to avoid reading advocacy either for or against these matters, unless it has to do with article improvement. reading advocacy blogs is not something i waste my spare time doing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice that Anastrophe doggedly avoids revealing the sources for his opinions. Over and over and over.  Only once in the last month did he mention a source for one of his assertions, and that source was an editorial opinion piece by the head of the NRA lobbying arm, Chris Cox.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * what are you implying? that i'm lying? Anastrophe (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Spooner and Story
The focus on Spooner makes it seem like he was a mainstream theorist when he was clearly a radical abolitionist who thought slaves had a 2nd Amendment right of revolution-- sort of in the John Brown camp-- important to be sure, influential perhaps, but certainly not typical.

Story is, however, very important, and was cited in Heller and has been claimed by all sides in this debate. Conlawgeek (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * are you trying to imply that slaves DON'T have the right to fight for their freedom? and should remain slaves?68.160.162.23 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny how whenever we try to discuss law or history we always come back to these ideological issues. Do you seriously think a slave could waltz into court claim a Second Amendment right to use a gun to kill his master? Is our goal here to write something useful or turn this into another gun rights chat room? Conlawgeek (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Eve funnier is how you avoid the question. Does a slave have the right to fight for his freedom, or should he stay a slave forever?68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. You see coverage of Joseph Story throughout the WP:RS, many dozens of times, and Spooner is barely mention.  Additionally the passage that was in the article was dubiously sourced to a website.  Searching the WP:RS books I see very few mentions of Spooner, a paltry two, brief mentions in the Halbrook and the Cornell books.  Spooner is too WP:Fringe to merit inclusion in this high profile article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spooner got a mention in Heller, Cornell didn't. By that standard Cornell and his itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy view that the Second Amendment rotects a "civic Right" should have been deleted. I noticed that when I tried deleting that itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy opinion, you were one of the people putting it back in the article.68.160.162.23 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We all know, you have told us several dozen times now, that you dispute that the book by Saul Cornell published by the Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5 is a reliable source. Please take your dispute to the proper forum, the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Let's hear that they say.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * at issue is not whether the source is reliable, the issue is whether a minority opinion, which for purposes of discussion may be characterized as 'fringe' due to the extremely few references to it found in reliable sourcing (much like spooner), is being given undue weight per NPOV. it's important that content disputes be accurately characterized.Anastrophe (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues with Cornell, only one of which is his itsy bitsy teeny tiny insi winsy opinion, others include the fact that he was the beneficiary of a $400,000 grant from the pro gun control Joyce Foundation making his impartiality more then a bit suspect, his continuing ties to the Joyce Foundation, his participation as editor in a Joyce Foundation "bought and paid for" issue of a law journal whose sole purpose was to push the collective rights viewpoint and which barred oposing pro-individual rights authors, the fact that he is the most cited authority by a factor greater then 2, the fact that as a historian he should be aware of what the term "well regulated" meant to the Founding Fathers, he doesn't seem to be. Let's also not forget his comment (currently in dispute on this talk page) that in Cruikshank the courts ruled in favor of a collective militia based rights view of the second amendment when the word militia doesn't even appear in Cruikshank. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On March 4th I identified seven leading scholars in reliable sourcing on this topic that discussed the 'civic' model Cornell, Shalhope, Warnken, Konig, Primus, Uviller and Merkel. This is not a 'fringe' opinion.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * were the other six discussing cornell's model? if so, six scholars noting what one other scholar has written does not even remotely constitute a significant view per NPOV. not when braced against the reliable sourcing that discusses the 'individual right' model and the 'collective right model'. Anastrophe (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion is not the same as being a follower of the "civic right" interpretation. I for instance am currently discussing it, and I thinks it stinks worse then a cesspool. BTW: You never did provide link to those discussions, so all I have is your word that the discussion took place. FYI: Your word doesn't smell like a rose.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you don't get it. Have you read any mainstream books on this topic?  Or, are you focused just on the gun blog ideology? I find your 'it stinks' opinion odd considering that the hypothesis not otherwise discredited by the gun advocacy blogs, see www.saf.org, www.firearmsandliberty.com and  www.guncite.com for instance. The whole 'civic' model described by Saul Cornell is actually mainstream, and closely related to the influential 'civic republicanism' hypothesis in vogue during the late 18th Century advanced by Niccolò Machiavelli.  Do you recognize the Machiavellian concept of "civic republicanism"?   David Williams influential article Civic republicanism and the citizen militia : the terrifying Second Amendment in the Yale Law Review also touches on this concept which Saul Cornell terms the "civic right".  Would you prefer that we call it 'civic republicanism'?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is as mainstream why did the Supreme Court not even mention it in Heller, and why didn't Cornell himself not mention it in the historians brief co-authored with Carl T BOGUS, well known "top dog" Joyce Foundation mouthpiece?68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I might have predicted we are back to gun rights conspiracy theories. Anyone with any law review experience, something that several of the people writing here clearly don't have, would tell you that law review editors jealously retain control of editorial content. I pulled the Fordham and Stanford issues and Cornell did not edit anything-- he wrote an article for each issue. I also did some research and found out that Joyce Lee Malcolm one of the scholars gun rights scholars love to quote took almost fifty thousand from the right wing Earhart foundation. Scholars need money to do research-- I care less about the money and more about the content. I am glad someone has mentioned civic republianism-- the Yale Law Journal devoted an entire issue to this about twenty years ago. The Second Amendment clearly grows out of the English fear of standing armies it was part of the civic republican tradition. The right of self defense was part of the common law tradition. The two are historically different. Conlawgeek (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has researched the issue knows that the Joyce Foundation has bought out whole issues of Law Journals, including editorial control, and stuffed them with pro gun control propaganda. Cornell was editor of one of these issues.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome point about the differences between civic republican tradition and common law tradition. Pull together some WP:RS and lets put it in the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Disputing removal of well cited material from one of one of the top legal writers of the mid-1800's after a hack making Spooner sound like a wild eyed loonie.68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Kozuskanich
I've removed the following material for being unsourced:"Thus, Nathan Kozuskanich, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and found that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich found that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences." If proper sourcing is added, it can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Added the ref. The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is solidly a reliable source per WP standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This March 2, 2009 article from the Northwestern University Law Review discusses this matter also, and could be used to expand. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job Salty. :) SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr and I have removed the following as there are major problems here:"In contrast, Nathan Kozuskanich, a protege of Saul Cornell, writing in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law surveyed the use of the term in all published sources from the period and writes that a military meaning was dominant in over 95% of the occurrences. Moreover, Kozuskanich writes that Cramer and Olson had understated the number of uses and missed the vast majority of occurrences. However, Clayton Cramer notes that in this paper, Kozuskanich references Michael Bellesiles heavily without mentioning that Bellesiles was found to have committed academic fraud, and that Bellesiles resigned his academic chair at Emory University, bringing the claims of Kozuskanich regarding military usages of the term 'bear arms' into question. (Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him 'guilty of unprofessional and misleading work,' Bellesiles resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded. )" Kozuskanich is not a reliable source, having relied upon Bellesile's false claims. It would be the same as using the Hitler Diaries as a source, to use Kozuskanich. Out it goes. Yaf (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr has restored that material and Yaf again removed it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your ad hominen logic is wacky. If the published paper in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is not reliable, fine, make that argument. Clayton Cramer's blog is not a reliable source, yet you give it more credibility than a University Law Review. Why resort to fallacious logic? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleezy and Stupid
Now I am mad. This attack on a bright young scholar is sleezy and stupid. First, there is no reference to Bellesiles in the article in question. Arming America is mentioned in another article and is not cited as authority, but rather is cited in the context of talking about the larger controversy over counting guns. Kozuskanich cites Bellesiles and all of his major critics. Clayton Cramer's blog is pure gun rights propaganda. His article in a right wing Federalist society journal could never have been published in a top law review. Here is what the Kozuskanich note from a Rutgers Law Review aricle said:

"We may never know exactly how many guns there were in colonial America, and this essay makes no effort to substantiate or dismiss the claims of Michael Bellesiles's controversial book. See generally MICHAEL A. BELLESILES, ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN CULTURE (West 2003) (2000). Bellesiles argues that American gun culture began not with the frontier and the Revolution, but with industrialization which made firearms cheaper and readily available. See id. He bases his thesis on an examination of probate records, which he claims shows that gun ownership was the exception to the rule before the 1820s. See id. For more detailed studies of gun numbers that contradict Bellesiles, see James Lindgren & Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1777, 1819-35 (2002); see generally Randolph Roth, Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship Between Firearms, the Use of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence, 59 WM. & MARY Q. 223 (2002)." This attack clearly discredits its author, who is nothing but a shill for the gun rights lobby who have attempted to take over this entry and hijack it for their ideological agenda. Removing the Kozuskanich evidence is simply unethical and only further discredits the gun rights trolls who live under this bridge. You have now totally discredited yourselves!Conlawgeek (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your outrage. I strongly encourage you to edit the article to put the Kozuskanich passage back into the article.  I would do so myself but I expect for Yaf to seek to get me banned if I were to do so.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * where is the outrage over conlawgeek's overt personal attacks, in contravention of NPA? so much for raising the level of discourse above this sort of nonsense. Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting in a one-sided attack on Clayton in the article through citing only Nathan's paper is not a neutral point of view. The balancing content by Clayton Cramer himself, published on his blog, with regards to raising questions of validity regarding the paper, questioning whether there was a continuance of an earlier academic fraud, was removed from the article.  The one-sided attack on Clayton Cramer was then removed as well, as noted above.  The point is not about an ad hominem attack on a young scholar who obtained his Ph.D. under Saul Cornell, or on Clayton Cramer.  Rather, the issue is a lack of balance in presenting only one side of the story.  Put both in, or leave both out.  It is not a neutral point of view to present only one side of the story.  As for the feigned outrage and the ad hominem attack on Clayton Cramer, I should point out that the result of Cramer's investigation into Michael Bellesiles academic fraud resulted in Bellesiles resigning his chair at Emory University, and the loss of his Bancroft Prize in 2002, as some of the original documents/records that Bellesiles claimed to have read were lost in the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.  There was no way he could have read these original documents.  Either we present both sides, or neither side.  Doing otherwise would not be a neutral point of view.  And, ad hominem attacks are not the issue here. NPOV is the issue. Yaf (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the attempts at diversion through the use of ad hominem fallacy. The core issue here is whether Clayton Cramer's personal blog meets WP:V standards for use in this encyclopedia.  The answer is simple:  No, Clayton Cramer's blog is not allowed.  Therefore Yaf's revert "rv bogus claim" which is considered 'bogus' because Cramer's blog says so, is ill founded.  Would someone, perhaps Yaf, have the decency to undue Yaf's outrageous revert?  Or, I will do it myself, if assurances are given that I will not be WP:3RR banned for doing so.  OK?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * there's only one problem. it attempts to give greater weight to the contention that the military service meaning is predominant. the section starts by stating that some scholars believe the context was almost exclusively military. the next portion is the rebuttal of that claim - well sourced - by cramer. and then it is to be followed by a rebuttal to cramer's rebuttal? no. that POV. Anastrophe (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Slippery! You argue on other days that WP:NPOV is not justification for removal of properly cited material.   But today it is OK?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you are twisting the policy. please visit WP:NPOV again and review it. when an editor adds material that obviously puts POV out of balance by giving increased weight to one view over another, then certainly the material can be deleted. are you claiming that the balance of sources favors the military usage view? what is your basis for this? we have a suggestion in the article that the military usage was predominant. that view is called into question by cramer's material. now you want to add a rebuttal that cramer was wrong. is this new material backed up by the balance of reliable sources? if not, then it's merely a POV push. Anastrophe (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting mental gymnastics. WP:NPOV says "..proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" and the Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is obviously a reliable source, so it looks like the weight shifted upon their publishing of the Kozuskanich paper. Plus, there is the recent paper published in the Northwestern University Law Review saying very similar criticisms of Clayton Cramers work. I notice that you tacitly agree that Clayton Cramers blog is not a reliable source.  Therefore how exactly is Kozuskanich law review article a push? It seems more like a reliably published neutral examination of the Cramer first paper, more, it is confirmed by the Northwestern University Law Review paper.  Sorry, it looks like you are arguing from your personal ideological preference, not from WP:Policy.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Look Bellesiles work has been discredited.The Kozuskanich footnote does not defend or endorse Bellesiles, it merely points out his argument and cites all of the major critiques. Look the fact is Bellesiles should not be air brushed out of the picture-- it is important that people know what he did and that he was called to account and eventually lost his job. More to the point, this discussion of him was not even in the article which exposed the shoddy research used in the Cramer essay. Moreover, publishing in a Federalist Society journal-- which has a clear ideological agenda (the journal was ranked the 500th  best in America!--seems pretty weak to me. This was not the Georgetown Law Journal.) Kozuskanich published in a top law journal-- ranked in the top 60. People complain about Joyce funding for the Chicago Kent symposium, but think it is ok for the right wing Federalist society to create an army of inferior journals to advance a conservative agenda. A clear example of double standards. Philo-Centinel (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Smears aimed at Michael Bellesiles
It is worth noting that Yaf and Clayton Cramer are heavily biased in their smears and personal attacks aimed at Michael Bellesiles. In truth, Bellesiles made errors, (which human being hasn't?). Should the entire life work of every human being be discounted because they made errors? Worse, should anybody that associates with someone who made errors be considered 'bogus'? We know that Yaf says yes, everyone who has read Bellesiles, (or who knows Saul Cornell) should be considered 'bogus'. You may feel otherwise. In the interest of fairness, if anyone reading this talk page cares about fairness, editors may also want to read Michael Bellesiles side of the story.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Proven liars are not acceptable sources for article material. Even secondhand, thirdhand or fourthhand.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be committing libel against a person with your statement: "proven liars". What proof do you have? Would you have the decency to be specific when you make a statement that could subject Wikipedia to a lawsuit for slander? Read WP:BLP. Bellesiles error was misattribution of the location of the probate records to the wrong county. The fact that the probate record existed seems not to have been disputed, rather the problem is that they were wrongly attributed to the adjacent county. Human error, as explained by Michael Bellesiles Why describe an error as a lie? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems conclusive.


 * I should point out that the result of Cramer's investigation into Michael Bellesiles academic fraud resulted in Bellesiles resigning his chair at Emory University, and the loss of his Bancroft Prize in 2002, as some of the original documents/records that Bellesiles claimed to have read were lost in the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. There was no way he could have read these original documents.68.160.162.23 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki seems to have a record of the Bellesiles misconduct - and wiki currently is citing people who call him a liar.

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

Garry Wills, who had reviewed Arming America enthusiastically for the New York Times, later said, "I was took. The book is a fraud." He also told an interviewer for C-SPAN that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," lamenting that Bellesiles did not have to do it, since he had good evidence for many of his claims. Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men." [19] Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively for the Journal of American History, offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust." [20]

Another current wiki article lists the following counts of misconduct against Bellesiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles


 * purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, R.I. that had never existed because the decedents died intestate (i.e., without wills),
 * purported to count nineteenth century San Francisco County probate inventories that had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire,
 * reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible,
 * misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis,
 * mis-cited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,
 * had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns in Vermont estates, and
 * had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth.

Bellesiles misquoted sources or took quotes significantly out of context to support his theses. In one case, he quoted George Washington on the quality of the militias and misrepresented a Washington comment about three poorly prepared militia units as if it applied to the militia in general, even though Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.[9] Bellesiles also modified texts of early gun laws to change their meanings. [10]68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cramer is not the only scholar critical of Bellesiles. James Lindgren also found many issues with Bellesiles' work here:


 * Fall From Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal, Yale Law Journal (2002) The final version of the 56-page review documenting problems with Arming America may be downloaded from this page at SSRN.
 * This all looks rather cut and dried to me. Either we include both points of view, with cites, or we include neither. But, it is clearly not NPOV to present only the Bellesiles/Kozuskanich point of view as fact in a rebuttal to Cramer's rebuttal in the article. Yaf (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki is against using material from liars in articles since they are not a "reliable" source. Of course, since wiki considers "stealing is bad" a matter of opinion I could be wrong.68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kozuskanich has nothing to do with Bellesiles. All the guy did was mention him in the same footnote that he mentions all of his serious academic critics. Cramer as a matter of fact was not one of those. It was Lindgren and Roth and the Emory Report that led to his being booted from Emory. The suggestion that Kozuskanich supported Bellesiles has no basis in fact. I agree that Bellesiles has no place in this article. Kozuskanich, by contrast, is a real scholar whose critique of Cramer shows pretty conclusively that the dominant understanding of bear arms had to do with military usage. Also, nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive-- that is a gun rights mis-representation of the collective and civic rights models. Everyone accepts that this is the usage of the Pennsylvania Minority. The question is what weight do you give to the minority of a single state, particularly when its formulation was not used by any other state, writer, or the Congress that actually wrote the Amendment!Conlawgeek (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * RE:you "military usage" claims.The Supreme Court has looked at the issue and determined that the Collective rights viewpoint is full of soft brown stuff.


 * But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter


 * RE:Your claim that nobody ever claimed that the military usage was exclusive, you are either ignorant or also full of soft brown stuff. The collective rights view of the second amendment is that it only protects the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a government created and regulated militia. See current cite #38


 * Williams, David H. (2003). The mythic meanings of the Second Amendment: taming political violence in a constitutional republic. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 0-300-09562-7. The amendment thus guarantees a right to arms only within the context of a militia, not an individual right to arms for self-defense or hunting68.160.162.23 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I think we are straying from a rigorous intellectual examination of the evidence. The fact that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view, does not mean that it is historically true, merely that the right wing of the court adopted the individual rights view. It does, however, mean that this is the legal meaning of the amendment until the people adopt a new amendment or we get a different court. (Frankly I don't think that a different court would mess much with Heller-- it would be counter productive and only energize the most radical wing of the gun rights movement.) We need to understand the difference between law and history. Also, if you look closely at the scholarship you will find that nobody in either the civic or collective rights camp ever said that everyone in America in 1788 believed that the amendment was only about the militia. The argument was always about what was the dominant view. Everyone who argued against the individual rights view always noted that one could find evidence such as the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority to support an individual right. As I noted above the issue is how do you weight such a text either as a matter of law or history?Philo-Centinel (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * it was not just the "right wing"(sic) of the court that adopted the individual right view. Anastrophe (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Stevens rejected the traditional collective rights view, his view was really the same as the limited individual rights view of Konig and Merkel, and Cornell's civic conception. The right belongs to individuals but is defined by the purpose stated in the preamblePhilo-Centinel (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rude Noise: The Supreme Court has examined this issue and stated


 * The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.68.162.247.11 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * kennedy is generally not considered to be in the "right wing"(sic) of the court either. he is frequently a swing vote or wildcard. my point in mentioning stevens and kennedy is that these proclamations of partisan leaning aren't helpful, unless it's to demonise one set of justices and implicitly aggrandize the others. it adds nothing of value to the discourse, besides perhaps identifying the editor's leanings (which has been sadly easily identified in the frequent use of terms such as "gun rights trolls"). please stick to addressing the issues under discussion, rather than forcing partisan claims on them.Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This touches on a core problem here. The term "individual rights" is fuzzy. It means different things to different people. On one extreme it has become an ideological 'slogan' with more symbolic meaning than encyclopedic meaning. Therefore the terms needs special treatment in the article, and the insertion of the word 'individual' over and over and over (38 times at last count), is a reflection of the ideological systemic bias problem here. And, if nothing else, is a shoddy un-encyclopedic style of writing due to vagary of the meaning of the term. We should be able to say the same thing without such heavy usage of an term that does double duty as an ideological slogan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the reference to "individual right(s)" in the article. It's used all of the time regarding rights, not just regarding the Second Amendment. However, it is used in slightly different ways regarding the Second Amendment. So each time it's used in the article, the context in which that term is being used so be made clear in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "individual rights" is actually not a fuzzy term at all. it is only considered fuzzy by those who broadly accept it for all amendments other than the second amendment, and wish to quash it for the latter. it's easily demonstrated: name a collective right, without referencing the second amendment or RKBA. collective or group rights are a bogus concept. yes, i'm merely expressing my opinion here. just as SB was asserting his opinion about the term.
 * to the (ten thousandth) claim of systemic bias, as i pointed out before, your raw count of the number of times the term appears is a pure red-herring. how many times does the word "person" appear? how about "right"? how about "arms/armed,disarm"? what about the word "law"? this is not a rational or valid argument concerning the content of the article unless you address the context of its use. taking words out of context is almost universally considered bad practice; it applies here too. if you have a legitimate claim in reference to the word "individual", then please provide each usage in context in a clear list. then other editors can see whether you're perhaps reflecting a systemic bias of a different flavor in making this argument. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the work of either Richard Primus or Jack Rakove you would realize that the concept of collective or corporate rights was an uncontroversial concept in Anglo-American law. The most obvious example of a collective right would be the right of the people to legislate. Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights talks about this right which obviously refers to the people in their collective capacity.Philo-Centinel (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the American system of government ALL rights belong to the individual. Powers allowing infringement of those rights are granted to government (society) by he people.

"Artcle 3 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights makes this quite clear.

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.68.162.247.11 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Militia Act of 1792
Regarding how extensive gun ownership was in the early day of the US, I would have to say it was pretty well universal. This is in response to the Bellesiles claim that gun ownership was rare. Not only was it not rare, gun ownership was REQUIRED of all able bodied males.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As if laws requiring people to do something is proof that they actually did something. Please stop cluttering this article talk page with your original research.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Citing law is not original research. Citing law which already has a wiki entry is also not original research. Stop cluttering up this talk page with insane objections.68.160.162.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Split the article
Trying to reach a consensus for this article is futile. How about we split the article? One part of the article would only contain arguments which editors like SaltyBoatr and Conlawgeek would find acceptable. Another part would only contain arguments which Yaf and the anon would find acceptable. While each part would be one-sided, the article as a whole would be balanced. This is better than the never ending screaming match we have now. SMP0328. (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not consistent with WP:POVFORK. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing converting this article into two articles. SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Won't work. Yaf also keeps deleting my additions. See recent removal of well cited "right to revolt" material as original research when wiki already has much the same material in the wiki article on that right. I also don't think much of him adding quotes from the president of the Brady Foundation. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

inline What, I don't get no respect? Yaf (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * People who try to win an argument by silencing opposing viewpoints don't deserve respect.68.160.162.23 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences
I removed the following material from the Early Commentary subsection of the Background section:"This passage has been used to support both an self-defensive and militia based interpretation of the Amendment. Indeed, Story was quoted by the majority opinion and the Dissent in Heller." Those sentences lack sourcing. If sourcing is found for them, and there are no other reasons for exclusion, they can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Denis Henigan, a pro-gun control advocate cites Story in his legal writings as does David Kopel, a pro-gun rights advocate.

Issues with recent citation by SaltyBoatr
In response to a complaint by Milnivlek over uncited material SaltyBoatr made the following cite referencing CHAPTER 5 PAGE 104

In the wake of Sanford Levinson's important Yale Law Journal article on the Second Amendment published in 1989 there was a flood of new scholarship on the Second Amendment. Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate. By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.

That is a problem as this book has no chapters and the reference to the nonexistent Chapter 5 needs to go. The book is a compilation of articles by various authors.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YBKAvosk_lcC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=David+J.+Bodenhamer+reversing+the+revolution&source=bl&ots=Gv0kLofKVo&sig=w33_6nr-VUhqaq2-lzUWxOtPt_A&hl=en&ei=I07JSYXaO5yNtgfPjvGgAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA113,M1

Actual text from page 104 reads

Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.

This is substantially different from what is currently in the article which currently belittles pro gun right authors. The article needs to be changed to get rid of the bias of whoever added that section and to better reflect the actual page 104 statement.

To SaltyBoatrs credit he did remove the hazy statement

If one actually looked closely at the scholarship and discounted multiple articles by the same author the balance was only slightly in favor of the individual rights view.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity I decided to check who added the material needing citation and I found out it was none other then Philo-Centinel, who until my recent attempt to get rid of an itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny minority opinion probably has had more items reverted, then the combined total of all other authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270330711&oldid=27032993668.163.98.56 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still need a fix here

The following, which is what is currently in the article

Much of this scholarship was published by pro-gun rights advocates, but a number of serious academics also entered the debate.

bears minimal relation to this,which is is a direct quote from the book.

Levinson's article spurred other scholars in law, history and political science to take up the issue with such lading scholars as Akhil Amar, Saul Cornell, Leonard Levy, Jack Ravoke, Lawrence Tribe, William Van Alstyne and Gary Wills among many others.

and this, while probably true, should probably be deleted as excess flab.

By 1999 the weight of scholarship had appeared to shift toward an individual rights interpretation.

and again there is NO Chapter 5. The book does NOT HAVE CHAPTERS. 68.163.98.56 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Chapter 5 starts on page 88. See here for a Google book view of the first page of the chapter.  There are variations in the way to format book citations, see, would you prefer Ely listed second?  Sorry, you are really off base.  There is plenty of reliable sourcing describing the emphasis on new scholarly work focusing anew on the 'individual rights' view after the 1989 Sanford Levinson Yale Law Review article which served as a watershed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is a compilation of articles, it does not have chapters. Is there some kind of problem with just stating page 104 as the source????68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact remains, Heller held the 2A restriction applies to individual-type weapons, as well as military-type weapons. The Article should reflect how it is, not how others agree or disagree over it, unless, of course, one wants to start a civil war. (Truwik (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the ruling has nothing to do with military type weapons. Th statement specifically was about "self defense" and not about bearing weapons in defense of your State, or the US.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem here. Did Heller affect only individual-type weapons? Aren't gunners in Army rifle squads issued .45 pistols, for up-close defense? Don't all military officers carry such side-arms? Isn't it a violation of the Military Code (in a war zone) for such soldiers to be without their pistols? Did Heller do away with collective-right weapons? In the so-called collective-right era, didn't the NFA of 1934 effectively outlaw possession of short-barreled shotguns - when such weapons were general issue to foot soldiers in WWI (for close-up trench warfare)? Did U.S. v. Miller destroy the collective-right? C'mon, the collective-right has always been there, regardless of federal legislation. Did Heller destroy the collective right? Of course not. The military may have whatever weapons they need. Did Heller discover a new individual right? Of course not. There are more guns in American households than pets. The question isn't whether the two rights should be equally represented, here, the federal government has infringed on both. The subject, here, isn't about rights,it's about federal infringement. (Truwik (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC))


 * There is no such hing as a "collective right". I the American system of governemtn ALL rights are at the individual level.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.76.26 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While some rights can be exercised "collectively" by a group of individuals, that does not make them "collective rights". The Supreme Court has stated that even the right to assemble, which can only be performed by more then one individual, is an individual right. Regarding you points about what weapons someone in the military can use or be issued, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but those examples have nothing to do with "exercising" a right. If you are issued and ordered to have a weapon on you as a member of the military, then you are not exercising a right, you are following an "order".


 * As far as I know, the Supreme Court only deals with issues placed before it. Heller brought forth the issue of having a working gun in his home in support of his right to self defense. In Heller, that is the only issue the Supreme Court examined and made a ruling on.141.154.76.26 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, we are misunderstanding each other. I was saying negatively, that Heller did not invent the individual right - because it already existed from our beginnings. Whether individuals were associated with a militia or not, they had (and have) the right to arms. Nothing has changed that, but the degree to which the right may be regulated by government. Starting with the NFA of 1934, Congress viewed the Second Amendment as only prohibiting infringement on militia-type weapons (even though that law did infringe on military weapons). That became known as the 'collective right' point of view, however, even though infringed on a little, the individual-right still co-existed with it. That collective-right POV is deemed by some editors as meaning only the military should have weapons - such as Mr. Justice Stevens indicated in Heller - hence the confusion. All Americans have the right to some degree, depending on the State or federal territory one lives in. (Truwik (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

D.C. v. Heller (2008)
The 4 footnotes attached to Heller immediately directing viewer's attentiion to comments about the case, before they have read it, is misleading. The first says "for the first time...the Second Amendment protects an individual right..." without saying it protects the right, only from federal infringement. The next says this "will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation" which attempts to extend the Court's D.C. decision throughout the states. Then, "Individual Americans have a right to own guns" as though they never had the right before Heller. And the fourth, that the Court embraced the view that "there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense" which millions of Americans had been doing for decades. Those footnotes must be removed completely or be placed elsewhere. I will add the pertinent Heller quotes that clearly state the decision applied exclusively to the District of Columbia. The individual-right existed throughout the U.S. from our beginnings, there is no evidence that after Heller Americans squealed for joy and made a bee-line for gun shops. If that decision proved anything, it's that federal law (or ordinances under their jurisdiction - such as D.C.), now, may not infringe on individual-type weapons, as was done in the past. It did not discover a new right, it clamped down on infringement by citizens of the United States, on their fellow-citizens, and, inferentially, on future federal laws. (Truwik (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

(That third footnote is even a misquote. It reads: "Americans have right to guns..." (Truwik (talk))

You are invited to vote for the proposed changes to the lede.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * and in case you were wondering I am all for removal third part commentary on ALL legal cases shown in the article and moving them to a new section that can be called "Commentary on Legal Cases" or something similar.


 * We now have two votes to clean up the Heller case of third party commentary.68.163.98.56 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that the dust is beginning to settle after Heller, I recommend reading this eye popping and insightful UCLA Law Review article about the aftermath of the decision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Eye popping yes, but not even close to being a neutral article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just curious what strikes you as 'not neutral'? In a nutshell, Scalia's logic in Heller amounted to an answer to Glen Harlan Reynolds 1996 Reason letter, whereby with a solid interpretation giving protection of an individual right to firearms for self defense "that gun owners would have less reason to fear creeping confiscation, and sensible gun control laws -- those aimed at disarming criminals, not ordinary citizens -- would pass much more easily. "  This isn't a neutral versus non-neutral observation, but rather it seems to be the new status quo in the district courts, with virtually all the gun control laws now being confirmed as constitutional while simultaneously, the individual rights of the law abiding is solidly protected.  This is fascinating how this has played out in the last nine months.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean virtually all gun laws get struck down don't you? Those Chicago suburb bans are one example.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heller decision only has effect in the District of Columbia: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment" (p. 64, opinion), and that's all that it means. Overturning a D.C. law only affects citizens who live there, a neutral position of Heller simply means accepting that. True, the Heller Court exposed the false reasoning, by the Court, in U.S. v. Miller but it did not overrule Miller. (Truwik (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * While true that Heller only directly effects the Washington DC ban, it indirectly effects future gun cases, as it can be used as precedent in those cases.68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the only cases where Heller could be cited as precedent would be those in other federal territories. The 2A has never been incorporated in a state-law case. (Truwik (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Check your sources, and quit wasting talk page space with your WP:OR. Dozens of federal cases have already used Heller as precedence, commonly under USC Title 18 Section 922, and other federal codes.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Dozens"? Please cite and quote one. Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

All those in favor of adding pertinent quotes to the Heller case, say 'aye'. (Truwik (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Well Regulated needs work
As the OED makes clear well regulated could mean well trained and disciplined or brought under legal control-- Have added material on Articles of Confederation to show that the argument that it always meant disciplined is simply wrong. Like bear arms this term is contested in the scholarshipPhilo-Centinel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC).


 * i've reverted your addition. please properly cite your additions, and provide an attribution for who is stating that it "clearly" means or doesn't mean xyz. as written, it appears to be your own interpretation of the meaning in the articles of confederation. Anastrophe (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

and i've again reverted your addition on the following basis:
 * 1) adding commentary about how the OED (which should be spelled out) is the preeminent authority appears to be a POV push to claim that the current definition is the one at issue. it is not.
 * 2) ommission for that self-same definition of OED ref to the archaic usage examples which support the 'well trained' archaic definion.
 * 3) inclusion of apparent unsourced OR: "Collective and civic rights theorists, by contrast, believe that the term means properly controlled by law.". really? i don't doubt it, but you've provided zero sources to back up that claim.
 * 4)  this is followed by "Thus in the same number of the Federalist, Hamilton also says: "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." (emphasis mine). you're publishing a conclusion based upon the previous unsourced claim. the latter quote doesn't necessarily support your previous contention. for that matter (OR of my own), by using substitution it reads fantastically: "if a properly controlled by law militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the proper control of law". i seriously doubt hamilton would make a redundant claim such as that. be that as it may, however.
 * 5) finally, you close with another claim with no sources to back it up.

you may wish to read up on wikipedia's core values and policies (click 'help' in the sidebar on the left). your edits appear well-intentioned, but are sorely lacking in conformance to the standard practices for editing. if we were editing I Love Lucy or some other trivial topic, the demand for conformance to standards would be less rigorous. this is not a trivial topic. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but adding a accomplishes the same things, with less hostility.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * once more, i must caution you to cease your personal attacks. you are approaching the point that i will have to seek sanctions. there is no hostility in my post above; your personalized interpretation and characterization of it as being hostile is unwelcome. please. stop. attacking. the. editor. thank you.
 * to the material: for non-controversial changes that should be sourced, adding a fact tag is appropriate. these are wholesale changes that drastically change the section, without addition of any proper (per policy) citations to reliable sources making these arguments. editor phil-centinel needs to find his sources first, then make his additions. as it stands now, this is a controversial, unsourced addition, and as such should not be allowed to stand. while i can only speculate, i suspect that if the addition was of unsourced commentary that supported the individual rights view, you would demand its removal immediately - as rightly all significant unsourced commentary should be removed. Anastrophe (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I should have said that your actions (and pattern of actions) in my perception have the strong appearance of being hostile. Sorry, I apologize.  Further, your evaluation for a drastic nature to these edits as being 'controversial' seems wildly off base.  What exactly are you reading that forms the basis for your subjective opinion?  Chris Cox?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw your "Chris Cox?" comment. assume good faith. you are implying things in the most egregious manner. Anastrophe (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a comment, it was a question. (Which you didn't answer.) I am asking what sourcing forms the basis of your opinions here.  The reason I asked "Chris Cox?" is that Chris Cox is the only source you have ever previously mentioned as reading.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * it just keeps going. please withdraw your false claim that the only source i have ever previously mentioned is chris cox. baldy falacious. one more time, with feeling: please stop directing these attacks at me. further, please stop framing invalid inquiries as a means of attack, to wit, 'what exactly are you reading that forms the basis for your subjective opinion?". that's a classic attack. as you are fond of pointing out, personal opinions are best left off the talk page. it is not my opinions that are at issue here; editor philo-centinel has introduced unsourced opinion, and rendered synthesis from those unsourced opinions, contradicting extant information in the article. and you consider that non-controversial? why are you not demanding sources for these claims? unsourced opinions on the talk page are one thing; in article space, entirely another. i'm frankly shocked that you haven't reverted it - it's patently unencyclopaedic. please reread my response to philo-centinel (the one you characterized as "hostile"). i laid out the rationale clearly. Anastrophe (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My simple question was for you to disclose the sources of your opinion. What do you read? Instead of an answer I see diversion.  I have been paying relatively close attention to your disclosures of your sources, and only once have you made a disclosure, here.  I accept that you could have disclosed your sources on another instance, tell us where to find that instance please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * my opinions are not the matter at issue here. i shouldn't have to keep repeating that. a request for my sources is illogical; editor philo-centinel added the unsourced prose to the article, it is his/her sourcing that is at issue. the burden of proof lies with the editor adding the material. i did not add the material. you are badgering me for information about material i didn't add to the article, and for which no burden of proof or responsibility holds. please stop. address the matter at issue, rather than trying to find new and innovative ways to attack me. shall i move forward with sanctions? you are patently violating AGF, CIVIL, and NPA. you are directing all of your discussion at me, when i'm not the editor who added the material. Anastrophe (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the OED, which is the standard reference tool for understanding the history of the language, could be interpreted as pushing a point of view. What we have here is an effort by gun rights advocates and individual rights theorists to do an end run around the obvious meaning of the term by claiming that it was the archaic usage, not the obvious usage that was intended by congress. Such a view is not really consistent with the Blackstonian rules of legal construction that the Founders endorsed. If one looks at the whole text of Federalist 29, and not just the excerpt, I think it supports the orthodox, not archaic meaning. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation discussion of a well regulated militia demonstrates that it can't be disciplined since that would make that provision of the articles read keep up a well disciplined and well disciplined militia. I appreciate that Wiki has its conventions, and I would concede I am not a maven on them, frankly I don't have the time to learn another set of rules, keeping up with the Blue Book takes enough time as it is, but this is supposed to be a group effort. Reverting things immediately, before people have time to read something and react strikes me as not in keeping with the true spirit of what a wiki is supposed to accomplish-- but that is just one person's opinion Philo-Centinel (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you are referencing only current usage. what does OED list for archaic usages? i only have a OUD, which doesn't have the scope of the OED (sorry, the OED is too rich for my blood). please stop with the "it's all gun rights advocates doing bad things" characterizations. the material you provided is what had the redundant meaning, so it seems peculiar to now say that a different redundant meaning supports your view. the "obvious meaning" as used in the archaic manner in the late 1700's appears to be that they were referring to well trained and well equipped. why else would they use this specific wording in this amendment, and nowhere else use the term well regulated in the constitution?
 * i'm sorry you don't have time to learn the conventions. if that's the case, perhaps you should consider not editing this encyclopedia. simply saying "i'm ignorant of the rules, so i'll ignore them" is rather a bad practice. adding material that is a prose-like statement of what is apparently your personal interpretation of these matters simply won't stand. original research and synthesis are specifically proscribed. as well, adding material not backed up by reliable sourcing is also proscribed. Anastrophe (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Inquiring minds want to know how gun control advocates can spin the following quote now appearing within "well regulated milittia" as support for their position


 * The quote is If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.


 * As the gun control advocates interpret the term "well regulated" to mean already regulated and under the control of government, why does the militia need to be brought under the control of government, when according to their interpretation, IT IS ALREADY under the control of government. Inquiring minds REALLY want to hear the "spin" on this. The phrase clearly indicate that a well regulated militia can exist OUTSIDE of government regulation.141.154.76.26 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of word "individual" done without consensus
These change are also perverting and bastardizing well cited material, to meanings not supported by the citations.

For instance the Cruikshank change from

the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms.

to

that the Second Amendment was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens.

Is not supported by anything in Cruikshnak.141.154.76.26 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * if specific changes don't reflect what the sources actually say, then they should be reverted. however, some of the changes appear to have brought the text closer to conformance with the original sources. consensus isn't required when altering the article to have it reflect what the sources actually say. likewise, consensus isn't required to revert those changes that are not supported by the sources. Anastrophe (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd LIKE to revert it, but it seems the person making the changes got IP editors banned from editing the article and I seem to be the only IP editor around.141.154.76.26 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Regulated" per Online Oxford dictionary
The online Oxford dictionary has 8 entries with the word "regulated" and no entries for the phrase "well regulated" or well-regulated".

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=regulated&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

accident - PHRASES - accidents will happen in the best regulated families

atomic clock • noun an extremely accurate type of clock which is regulated by the vibrations of an atomic or molecular system such as caesium.

control - 4 a device by which a machine is regulated.

fly-by-wire • adjective a semi-automatic, computer-regulated system for controlling an aircraft or spacecraft.

heraldry • noun 1 the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated

quartz clock (or watch) • noun a clock (or watch) regulated by vibrations of an electrically driven quartz crystal.

regulation - 3 the action or process of regulating or being regulated.

socialism • noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It seems that the word "regulated" continues to have uses outside of government "regulation".141.154.76.26 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "AskOxford.com" is not the same thing as the Oxford English Dictionary. Your situation may be different than mine, but an easy way to read the Oxford English Dictionary is to access it via your local library website.  If your local library does not offer access, I hear that there are several national libraries which do offer access without a local residency requirement.  Here is a screen-shot of the OED definition for "regulated" as in "well-regulated". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you Blind? Please advise if you missed either the term Oxford Dictionaries which is part of the header of thepage the link gos to, or the term 8 results found in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary prominently displayed in the link. 141.154.76.26 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With the intent of making SalyBoatr look as obstructionist as he is, I now add the following link to a google search of "Oxford Ditionary" with the following prominently showing as the first link found by the search

AskOxford: Free online dictionary resources from Oxford University

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Oxford+dictionary&btnG=Search&cts=1239037103755141.154.76.26 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's revert
Yaf's wholesale revert defies logic. Yaf's passage is not sourced in the cited book, and appears to be largely WP:OR. The version he reverted out matches the reliable book source closely. Also Yaf reverted the misquoted "quotation" from the Cruikshank ruling back into the article and took out the verbatim court quotation, why? We can only guess. Yaf please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Objections by SaltyBoatr are getting downright silly
While his normal level of obstructionism is horrible, today he surpassed even his own low standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=282137342&oldid=282135650

Per the above he now contests that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment

and contests a VERBATUM reproduction of Supreme Court opinion as "dubious".141.154.76.26 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Check for yourself. The quote from Cruikshank presently in the article is not verbatim. Also, assertions that the Second Amendment has been incorporated at present are equivalent to the flat earth hypothesis. What sources are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * RE:Flat Earth, YOU are contesting the following quote that states that the Second Amendment has "NOT" been incorporated. Where do you get the interpretation that the following quote states it HAS been incorporated per your above Flat Earth objection?


 * Though many of the rights delineated in the federal Bill of Rights have subsequently been incorporated by the Court as also restricting state law, the Court has not done so for the Second Amendment.141.154.76.26 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the confusion now, you misunderstand me. Actually, I am requesting a citation for the entire paragraph. Yaf reverted out the version of the paragraph which closely matched the coverage in Michael Kent's book published by Duke University Press.  Yaf, with his revert, inserted back into the article a version of the paragraph which appears to be entirely original research.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You contest the following as "dubious"

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "Bearing arms for lawful purposes." This is not a right granted by the Constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes


 * Which is a portion of the following paragraph that appears in Cruikshank. You and your obstructionism is, to repeat, "GETTING DOWNRIGHT SILLY"

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.141.154.76.26 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting that your quote above fails even to match the version in the article, by omitting the final punctuation mark 'period', which is actually a comma, and should at least be an ellipsis because the version presently in the article truncates out the vital "internal police" passage. Also, the version presently in the article includes several other minor punctuation and capitalization errors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So its "dubious" because it lacks period?141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

reverted again
Yaf reverted again, with zero participation in discussion on the talk page. This appears to be long term edit war pattern in this article, in violation of WP:3RR policy. Notice that Yaf reverted back in the erroneous quotation of from the court case, including the punctuation and capitalization typographical errors, and including truncation. Also Yaf reverted back to a first paragraph version of the section that is entirely unsourced. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the reversion. Is that now enough participation?141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to fixing typos, but the additional material you added has little to do with the Second Amendment. 141.154.76.26 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there a dubious tag placed on the Cruikshank quote? Is there a dispute whether http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html is a reliable and verifiable source?  Yaf (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look again. The official version has different punctuation and capitalization.  "Constitution, neither" should be "Constitution. Neither".  Also, "Bear" should be "bear'.  Those are trivial.  The huge problem is the POV push truncating off the "internal police" clause through selective censored using an ellipsis.


 * Rather than fuss about this any longer, I just correct the quote in the article. I trust this is not objectionable to any editor, if it is, lets talk.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf's recent cite using a quotation from the Heller decision does a disservice to the readers. The Cruikshank case was an integral part of the Reconstruction era "Slaughter-house cases" landmark series of SCOTUS decisions, and this fact (which is well sourced in the Michael Kent book) should not be be censored.  Also, the core issue determined in Cruikshank was that the right to bear arms for freed slaves was denied and this vital point was a huge issue, really the dominant controversy in discourse regarding 'bearing  arms' and the Second Amendment during this era in US history and must be mentioned.  The overt focus exclusively on 'incorporation' is a post script issue for Cruikshank, not an central issue at the time of the ruling and would be better covered in the dedicated section of the article dealing with 'Incorporation'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody object to the addition of coverage that the Cruikshank holding amounted to a denial of the right to bear arms for freed slaves? Sourced, as described in Michael Kent book?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems tangential to the Second Amendment. I don't see a need for it.141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you it was not tangential to the US citizens during the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Have you read any history books about this topic?  Did you read the Michael Kent book? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for it either. Looks more appropriate for the Slaughterhouse case article, than for this article.  (And, it is safe to assume other editors have read history books and know how to read; it is rather condescending to ask such questions.) Yaf (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "I don't see a need for it either." is no justification for exclusion of material that is reliable sourced. Personal whim carries no weight. Did you read the Michael Kent book?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sourcing is not the sole criterium, here; relevance is important, too. There is minimal relevance of this detail to this article.  Hence, I don't see a need for it. Yaf (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that you personally don't see a need for it. Relevancy is measured by what the reliable sources find relevant.  In this case the Michael Kent book and the Otis Singletary book find this as being relevant (plus other books too).  The relevancy found in reliable sourcing trumps your personal opinion.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which books have been read?  WP:V limits us to use of reliable sourced information.  The AnonIP editor seems to be limited to nothing but his/her original research and personal opinion, with zero mention of his/her sourcing.  I asked a fair question which should be easy to answer.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be a bit clearer. At the time there was minimal law enforcement done by the feds. Unless you wanted to use the army (forbidden then and still forbidden) aside from court orders, there was little that the feds could do to protects peoples rights from infringement by states or local governments.


 * Just out of curiosity, were these free slaves bona fide members of a government sanctioned and organized militia or were they simply people going about their business? You being a card carrying member of "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only within the context of a militia" it seems strange that you would push the individual rights viewpoint that former slaves had the right to arms just for going about their business. Is something wrong with you? Are you stating that the individual rights viewpoint was current as of Cruikshank? and how can this be reconciled with Cornell viewpoint that Cruikshank supported a collective rights militia based view of the Second Amendment? 141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are truly curious read the Michael Kent book. If you really want to learn about the Negro Militia of this era I strongly recommend reading Professor Singletary's book, (rare & out of print, but well worth seeking out) _Negro militia and reconstruction_ By Otis A. Singletary OCLC 5934970  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Otis' book is well researched. I first met him over 30 years ago, and have long been impressed with his attention to detail.  He was a good University President, too, when he wasn't writing his books on history.  Yaf (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More of Cornell that needs to be weeded out - Comment that CUIKSHANK made a collective rights interpretation
Since I can't seem to get enough interest in getting rid of all the Cornell references based on the fact that he is a biased "mouthpiece" in the pay of a gun control group I will go about it quote by quote.

Next on the list

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[87] made a collective right judicial interpretation modeled on Cruikshank.[88] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

Anyone reading Cruikshank will notice that Cruikshank DID NOT make a collective rights interpretation. Cornell's goal here seems to be to insinuate that the collective right theory existed much earlier then it in fact did.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank

''1. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.''

''Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.''

The word "militia" does not appear at all in Cruikshank.

Unless someone can come up with a valid objection I will delete the bold portion above as inaccurate personal opinion.68.160.141.242 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cornell is a full professor at Ohio State-- he ran a center with Joyce Money that did not take a stand on the Second Amendment as either an individual or a collective right. His work was published by Oxford University Press and his articles have appeared in leading journals-- peer reviewed and law reviews. The suggestion that he is paid by the gun lobby is gun rights propaganda. OSU could never have taken money from a foundation with strings attached, a point I have made before. His work is generally regarded as the best and most

scholarly study of the Second Amendment--Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You already hacked one complain about Joyce, their bought and paid for Law Journals and the fact that Cornell participated as editor in one of those "Bought and Paid For" Journals. Your continuing hacks of he article don't help your cause any. As for his "knowledge" let me know when he figures out what "well regulated" means. BTW: Your arguments are continuing to be taken in bad faith. You are dead to me! Go away! 141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As the word militia does not appear at all in Cruikshank, it can without a single grain of doubt be determined that Cruikshank DID NOT made a collective right judicial interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms was applicable only within the context of a militia.

Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Find me a reference from a court or a scholar dated 100 years ago in support of your claim.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of English Declaration of Rights disputed by scholars and Heller The meaning of the English Declaration of Rights is a core example of how the same text has been read by different scholars in this debate to support both an individual right and a civic or collective right. If you compare the historians brief in Heller with Joyce Lee Malcolm's brief you can get a sense of the radically different interpretations. Can we start being a little honest and recognize that this issue is complex and that there are legitimate differences of opinion without once again turning to conspiracy theories about the Joyce FoundationPhilo-Centinel (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * interesting, but you've failed to provide any citations to back up your statements. claims in article space that "scholars continue to debate" beg for reliable sourcing. we get that you contend that they continue to debate the meaning. what's your reliable source that makes that same contention? it's bad practice to add prose to articles without sources. that failure is often overlooked on articles such as Honey or Power rangers; it's generally understood that on a deeply divisive issues such as the 2A, sourcing needs to be included for virtually every change made in article space. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am agreeing with Anastrophe here. About all that Philo-Centinel has established now is that his (hers?) opinion on this topic doesn't match Professor Cornell opinion.  The distinction is that Professor Cornell's published opinions meets Verifiabilty policy standards, and Phil-Centinel's opinions do not.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still don't see anyone addressing my complaint that Cornell's comment cannot be accurate. If Cruikshank does not make a militia based interpretation, then Salina cannot be modeled on it.141.154.12.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

I would have thought the reference to Heller would have been enough  authority, but I am happy to oblige with additional sources. The limited view of the Declaration of Rights provision on arms may be found in Lois Schworer's essay in The Second Amendment in Law and History or David Konig's essay on the Transatlantic Context of the Second Amendment in Law and History Review. The gun rights view may be found in Joyce Malcolm's, To Keep and Bear ArmsPhilo-Centinel (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question here is whether Cruikshank made a collective rights militia based interpretation on not. Cruikshank does no say it did ad Heller does not say it did. As for your other sources, please provide links. If those sources are not 100 years old then you are showing additional evidence of bad faith on top of the mountain you have already accumulated. I am waiting for you to back up your statement below.


 * Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years.

BTW: The Second Amendment in Law and History was edited by Carl Bogus, well known Joyce Foundation mouthpiece, while Konig's article does not mention Cruikshank. PLEASE try to say on topic. This is about whether Cruikshank made a "militia based" interpretation of the Second Amendment.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing to wait for objection to removing obviously wrong material by paid "mouthpiece" Saul Cornell - see above for details141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

141.154.12.116 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even more: Continuing to wait for objection to removing obviously wrong material by paid "mouthpiece" Saul Cornell - see above for details68.160.162.23 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cruikshank's "protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights" simply recognized that individual and collective rights co-existed, and both are protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment. Individuals and militiamen have always had the right to arms from our beginnings. The suggestion that, after Cruikshank, only collective military men had the right, flies in the face of our history. That individuals in every State of the union have firearms, is an historical fact. (Truwik (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Cruikshank uses the word "collective" twice in the whole opinion and does not use the word militia at all. See above for exact quotes. There is no evidence that the "right to keep and bear arms" was considered a "collective" right by the Court, per those quotes.141.154.76.26 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with that. The Court, in passing, just acknowledged that both 'collective' and 'individual' rights existed. The Court's "protection of their...rights" referred to protection from federal infringement - as the Court clearly stated at page 553. The Court held that the Second Amendment did not protect Mr. Cruikshank's individual right - or anybody else's right within a State - because the right is not dependent on the U.S. Constitution for its existence. (That is, the right is inherited from our ancestors.) The Court said, only Congress can violate the 2A, and Mr. Cruikshank would have to look to his State (Louisiana) for protection. Since the Court did not protect an individual's right, gun-grabbers assumed Cruikshank supported only the collective right. This is nonsense and, in this editor's opinion, could well be "Defrauding the United States," which is a felony. It's saying: Thus sayeth the Court, when the Court didn't thus sayeth. Thus, "modeled on Cruikshank" must go. (Truwik (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC))