Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 20

Cool down, let's talk
The negotiation by revert method of editing doesn't seem to be working. Let's truce and try talking instead, anybody agree? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can start by stopping revering good faith efforts to make the article more understandable. 141.154.9.221 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And, note that SB is up to his old tricks and posted a request to have article frozen here just before he commenced edit warring, in the hopes of freezing the article in his preferred state... Gaming the system is not the way to proceed, either. Yaf (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaming the system is considered "vandalism" - been reading up on the rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism 141.154.9.221 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we start with stopping the personal attacks. They poison the air. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has been fully protected. This means none of us has any direct say in what's in the article. I don't feel like begging for edits. Therefore, I am boycotting this talk page until the full protection is lifted and I recommend all other editors do the same. SMP0328. (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We also have the option of following the WP:DR guidelines. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From my experience here I would say that getting all of my teeth pulled out with a rusty set of pliers would be less painful then engaging in dispute resolution with you.141.154.9.221 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you think I feel? This is frustrating for me too.  Do we have other options?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (ec) Protection is not a punishment but is only a stop-gap measure and, protection in case of a dispute is primarily intended to give the various participants some time to think through their positions and to use the talk page rather than engage in an edit war. There is no need to 'beg for edits' - the protection lasts for a week and there is no deadline for wikipedia articles. If, as you say, nothing changes, then you'll need to seek some method of dispute resolution. Avoiding the talk page when the article is protected is absolutely the opposite of what you should be doing. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A noble statement, and clearly per policy. But, history tends to indicate the reason for SMP0328's feelings.  The gaming of the system employed here has been done many times by the same individual.  There have also been multiple 3O attempts, RFCs, and even an attempt at ArbCom to get it to stop.  None of the steps of WP:DR have resulted in any resolution, or the cessation by the same individual of gaming the system. Writing another 350Kbytes over the next week would likely not improve matters much.   Yaf (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute this smear aimed at me, which is wrong, uncivil, and counterproductive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just took a look at the previous mediation attempt. Good luck! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Personal squabbles are supposed to be confined to personal talk pages. (Truwik (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

D.C. v. Heller (2008)
This landmark decision of the Supreme Court (more than any other) needs to be quoted succintly, but completely as to how it defined the meaning of the Second Amendment. Readers of this Article would require no less, it's what they would expect to find in an encyclopedic article on constitutional law. The Heller decision will impact future federal law on arms, and the legal field and others need to know that. This editor is prepared to enter said quotes upon a consensus of other editors. Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * "...will impact..." involves speculation about the future. And WP:SPECULATION ties our hands about speculating the future.  Yet, in fact there have been nearly a hundred Second Amendment federal court case rulings already, since Heller.   I do favor giving those cases coverage, no speculation needed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several federal restrictive gun Bills being considered by Congress now. If enacted into law, it'll be interesting to see whether federal courts uphold them, as they are now upholding past federal laws. Congress is acting like Heller never happened. I agree that the key post-Heller federal cases should be a part of this Article. I don't see this subject ever ending. (Truwik (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

reminder: this is the talk page for second amendment to the united states constitution
it is not a forum for discussing other editor's behavior, particularly when it isn't directly pertaining to this article and this article's talk page. posting links to my user talk page is an attempt to directly attack and intimidate me - using this talk page as the venue. sorry, wrong venue SB. complaints about my behavior, that aren't directly pertaining to this article or this article's talk page, are what there are assorted noticeboards for. feel free to take your grievances there. good luck accomplishing anything but ridicule for trying to make an issue of comments made four years ago. your present behavior - attempting to use this article's talk page as a launch point for attacks on me based on past behavior - is certainly sanctionable. keep digging that hole. Anastrophe (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

US v Walters not "YET" a Second Amendment case and should be removed
The link provided as backup points to a Motion filed pre-Heller

http://www.vid.uscourts.gov/dcopinion/08cr0031_united_states_et_al_v_walters_order_20080715100550.pdf

where the judge states

Walters only states that he "reserves the right to challenge" the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.

In other words according to the judge Walters has not challenged it on Second Amendment grounds and the judge is not considering the Second Amendment in his decision to NOT dismiss the case. Also the judge does not reference Heller in his rejection of the Motion to dismiss. Only prior cases.

Unless someone can find later court documents showing that Walters did challenge his indictment on Second Amendment grounds I believe that references to this case should be removed from the article.141.154.9.241 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Still waiting for either objections to deleting references to this case or additional information that Walters did at some point invoke his Second Amendment rights, making this a Second Amendment case.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked at the document for US v Walters to confirm judge said that Walters "reserves the right to challenge" on Second Amendment grounds and has therefore "not yet challenged"? I checked the website and found two other documents and then zip. My guess is that Walters either plea bargained or the charges were dropped. Most likely the former. Does anyone feel that the article reference to this case needs to stay or objects to its removal? A plea bargain is unlikely to originate case law or even commentary on case law.68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for any objections to getting rid of the reference to Walters. It has now been 3 weeks since I brought up this issue. Don't bitch about getting "consensus" if you can't be bothered to participate in the debate.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Restored that case. In that decision, the judge stated:


 * "Walters now argues that both counts in the indictment should be dismissed because they violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In his motion, Walters neglects to substantiate that argument with citations to any authority. Instead, Walters points to District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268 (June 26, 2008), a case that was pending before the Supreme Court at the time his motion was filed. Walters states only that he “reserves the right to challenge” the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.(Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2.)"


 * The judge said he was bound by Third Circuit case law and so denied Walters's motion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is not how the judge ruled but on what he ruled. As I pointed out above, and you just confirmed the judge stated Walters states only that he “reserves the right to challenge” the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. It is my understanding that if a person reserves the right to challenge, he has in fact not yet challenged. If your understanding differs from mine, please advise on what that difference is.141.154.15.141 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the bigger issue is whether the district courts (post-Heller) have ruled that the "sensitive places bans" are constitutional. And, they have done so repeatedly.  In US v. Walters 3rd circuit "sensitive places, school zone" (as the article says), and also with US v Davis 9th Circuit "sensitive places, airplane", and also with "US v Lewis" 3rd Circuit "sensitive places, school zone".  At least three "post Heller" district court rulings have upheld the constitutionality of gun bans in sensitive places.  What is the problem here?   Should we expand the article to include mention of all three of these cases? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No regardless at all. This article is (or at least should be) about subjects touching on the Second Amendment. If Walter did not challenge on Second Amendment grounds then the case does not belong in the article. Period End Of Conversation. Besides, the school zone ban was struck down decades ago. Get with the times.141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The two counts were illegal possession of a firearm and carrying same within 1,000 feet of a school. Walters probably couldn't win the latter count - everyone is supposed to know the law. The illegal possession count could depend on whether Walters was insane or a convicted felon (and thus prohibited by law from possessing firearms). If he was otherwise legally eligible to possess a firearm, then it would turn on whether the circumstances were similar to the Heller case. If so, he could cite Heller as precedent, and the lower federal court would be bound by it. The question is: Why was Walters' possession of a firearm illegal? (Truwik (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Rupert Walters, Jr., of Estate Pastory, was arrested (Apr. 14, 2008) and charged with Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm and Possession of a Controlled subsance. The firearm was a Taurus 38 Special, and the substance was marijuana. Walters told police he found the gun "in a trash can" and did not have a permit for it. (http://www.vipd.gov.vi/press_releases/show-press-release.aspx?id=2.) The unlawful possession of a firearm in a school zone was under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A): "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." The unauthorized possession was under 14 U.S.C. 2253(a), which deals exclusively with the Coast Guard, and was a mistake, 18 U.S.C. 2253(a) deals with forfeiture of property to the federal government. Since Walters did not acquire the firearm legally, I don't see that he has a chance of using Heller. (Truwik (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * According to the judge Walters did not use Heller and did not challenge under the Second. That's my whole point for removing this case, which most likely ended up in a plea bargain with no court commentary.141.154.15.7 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claim seems false, and appears to be entirely original research, armchair interpretation of the primary document. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then, find me the court commentary. I looked and found ZIP!141.154.15.7 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoat's 'armchair interpretation of the primary document' is totally offpoint. He just wants Heller to apply somewhere besides the District of Columbia. While the Virgin Islands is U.S. territory, like D.C., there is no evidence Walters availed himself of that - he was grasping at straws - had he acquired his firearm legally before he was arrested, it might have been another story. But either way, would not have extended Heller's venue to the States. U.S. v. Walters must be removed. (70.178.20.39 (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Right of Revolt
Just giving warning that depending on how the issue over the "civic RIGHT" viewpoint goes I may attempt to add back the section on the Right to Revolt which was deleted about a month ago by a certain Yaf. Funny how his name keeps popping up.

I was not at all happy to see that section removed but I accepted the removal.

HOWEVER if people continue to insist that the Civic RIGHT viewpoint has enough of a following to be included in the article, then I will insist that the right to revolt be reinstated. The right to revolt has a substantially larger following then the civic RIGHT viewpoint.141.154.12.116 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about popular constitutionalism or law? The right of revolt may have a following, particularly among those who read this essay, but can anyone find evidence that it is an accepted part of American law? Has the Supreme Court or any federal court endorsed it? The civic right or limited individual rights was defended by Stevens in Heller--which makes it important for readers to understand. Conlawgeek (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The right to revolt was secured in the Magna Carta, it was cited in the Declaration of Independance and is currently in Bill of Rights f the Constitution of New Hampshire, making it not only recognized law, but recognized CONSTITUTIONAL law

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

John Adams stated

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

From "The STATESMAN'S BOOK of JOHN OF SALISBURY"

http://www.constitution.org/salisbury/policrat456.htm

With these limitations, "it is as lawful to kill a tyrant as to kill a condemned enemy." All these passages merely go to show that tyrannicide is not unlawful, and not that it is a positive duty; indeed it is in connection with them that John expressed his opinion, already quoted, that usually the safest and most expedient method of destroying tyrants is for those who are oppressed to pray to God that their scourge may be removed; and he praises the forbearance of David, who "although he had to endure the most grievous tyrant, and although he often had an opportunity of destroying him, yet preferred to spare him, trusting to the mercy of God, within whose power it was to set him free without sin."253 Elsewhere, however, John represents tyrannicide as amounting to a public duty. "To kill a tyrant," he says, "is not merely lawful, but right and just. For whosoever takes up the sword deserves to perish by the sword. And he is understood to take up the sword who usurps it by his own temerity and who does not receive the power of using it from God. Therefore the law rightly takes arms against him who disarms the laws, and the public power rages in fury against him who strives to bring to nought the public force. And while there are many acts which amount to lèse majesté, none is a graver crime than that which is aimed against the body of Justice herself. Tyranny therefore is not merely a public crime, but, if there could be such a thing, a crime more than public. And if in the crime of lèse majesté all men are admitted to be prosecutors, how much more should this be true in the case of the crime of subverting the laws which should rule even over emperors? Truly no one will avenge a public enemy, but rather whoever does not seek to bring him to punishment commits an offence against himself and the whole body of the earthly commonwealth.

Samuel Adams stated

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God. Benjamin Franklin 141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I again advise other editors that their continuing insistence on including a miniscule minority viewpoint, will result in my attempting to add back into the article a section on the right to revolt and its relationship to the keeping and bearing of arms. I did not challenge the deletion of this section about a month ago by Yaf on grounds that it was a small viewpoint, but Yaf's (and other editors) continuing insistence on keeping a miniscule minority opinion (civic RIGHTS) in the article while at the same time keeping out a much larger viewpoint (right to revolt) can be considered nothing but "bad faith".141.154.15.141 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The present content that is cited has nothing to do with the deleted earlier POV commentary content that was uncited. And, the claim that the civic duty/right is a minority viewpoint is entirely incorrect, because there are many that hold this viewpoint.  Likewise, the claim that this viewpoint is "Brady campaign propaganda" is entirely incorrect, as there is no mention of any Brady Campaign connections. Taking the point of view that all interpretations other than an individual right interpretation is "Brady Campaign propaganda" is simply uncited paranoia.  It has no place in this article.  Interpretations that the Second Amendment includes a right to counter tyranny (some might call it a right to revolt) is entirely appropriate, provided that cites are included.  POV commentary claiming a right to revolt, especially content that is uncited, however, will not likely stand in an article as controversial as this one.  Cite it if you expect the content to remain.  The objection to the content deleted earlier was primarily based on method, and lack of cites, not in the inherent message.  Please consider getting a User account name, as the continuous changing of IP addresses is only confusing your contributions, and causing you more difficulty in getting your contributions included.  Yaf (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki rules frown on unspecific words such as "many". Please advise how "many" is "many" by an actual numeric estimate and how you came to get that estimate. FYI: Many is usually considered by "many" to be more then 5 as in 1,2,3,4,5 "many"!


 * Under the US system of government there is no such beast as a civic "Right". All rights are individual. Your state Constitution will most likely confirm that. If it doesn't check some of the original Constitutions such as the ones for New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia and others.


 * The claim that it was Brady Campaign propaganda was a direct result of you quoting the President of the Brady Campaign. Are you now going to lie through your teeth and deny that you added a quote attributed to that president?


 * Funny how you now say that the right to revolt is now OK when a month ago you were the one that deleted it. What made you change your mind?


 * The right to revolt is probably the best cited section of the whole article. Currently it has 7 cites for 5 lines of text. It was as well cited when you deleted it a month ago. I believe a forked tongue is making an appearance.141.154.15.141 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "forked tongue"? Tone down your personal attacks please.  They are counterproductive in discussions.  Please read WP:Civility, and take this policy to heart.  The collaborative editing of this article is much more difficult when interspersed with your invective.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So ho do I call someone a liar in wiki?68.163.98.56 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And I find it difficult to contribute my part as an editor with your continual threats and attempts to ban me.68.163.98.56 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing on Wikipedia, especially in articles on contentious topics, can be stressful. So, you are not alone when you feel like calling someone a liar! The question to ask is: Does calling someone a liar help you with your cause? That depends on what you want out of this process, so only you can answer that question. Other Wikipedia editors have found that finding ways to get along with their "enemies" proves more successful in achieving their own goals. See for instance this essay: A nice cup of tea and a sit down. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice your way seems to be to make threats.68.163.98.56 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have said what in the "right to revolt" addition was original research, nor what was "synthesized". The right exists and already has an article devoted to it in wikipedia.68.160.162.23 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Right to revolt is certainly related to firearms, and it is also related to food and clothing. In the Revolutionary War men froze and starved to death at Valley Forge, should we have sections on proper nutrition and clothing for a successful revolt? And how best to keep your powder dry? C'mon. (Truwik (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Only if they are relevant to the Second Amendment. :-) 141.154.76.26 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was being silly. The Second Amendment Article is about the right to arms not being infringed by the federal government, not about how the United States came into being. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of briefances." That should precede any revolt, but I fail to see any relevance, whatever, of that to this 2A Article. (70.178.20.39 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Consensus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

1 a: general agreement : unanimity  b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned 

version A of consensus = everybody agrees = I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel that all editors here would agree to anything.

Leaving version B = most agree = to determine if most agree, taking a vote works pretty well.141.154.11.202 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That definition is not relevant here. Here is the definition that matters. SMP0328. (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever wiki has to say, the fact of the mater is that you can't claim any kind of consensus unless you take a poll of all parties, and a poll is just another name for counting the votes. If you aren't allowed to ask how people feel on the issue (ie how they vote on it), how can you determine if consensus has been reached?


 * BTW: you are invited to join in the debate for a new lede. Complaints have been made that a limited number of editors should not foist their views on all editors and I would personally like to hear the views of all regular editors of this article.141.154.11.202 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Polls are not forbidden, but they aren't binding either. So you could conduct a poll, but the results of such a poll would not directly create a consensus; the poll could only be used to help reach a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which editor(s) have been accused of foisting? May I recommend that the best method to build consensus does not include making offensive personal attacks, like accusations of foisting. (Even if you believe it to be true.) Making offensive accusations poisons the water, which makes cooperation later more difficult. And without cooperation, building consensus is hard to do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Everybody here is guilty of "foisting" except those that haven't done a single edit. If there is a section in the article that you don't believe should be there, then you have been "foisted" on, If you added something that someone else objected to, then you are the one "foisting". And now back to something a bit more interesting, what is you opinion of my proposed method of reaching a mutually disagreeable but workable consensus? It you don't like it feel free to suggest your own method. 141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy WP:NOR is designed to prevent 'foisting'. I have already answered your question. I recall the painstaking work that went into the crafting of the wording of the current lede section, and it is deliberately vague, as common sense calls for with such a contentious article. My judgment of your proposal is that you are attempting to push your personal point of view, as opposed to reading all the available reliable sourcing, and crafting an article that matches the point of view in the sourcing. Tell me, what reliable sourcing are you reading? All I see is your original legal analysis of selected snippets from primary court documents, which seems to violate WP:NOR policy. SaltyBoatr (talk)


 * Where was this painstaking crafting done? Post a link to that debate. I don't remember being invited.141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the 17 talk page history archives at the top of this page, going back for 5+ years, now. It's all there. It was painful. Yaf (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The current lede hasn't been there for 5 years. Try again! Only this time with a link to those "painstaking" discussions.141.154.11.202 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to read all of that, you can start with Archive 10. SMP0328. (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked and confirmed that I objected to not including the word "infringed" in the lede. Seems I still object. Thus no consensus on the lede. It was "foisted" on me.

"Please look up the meaning of the word "infringe" before continuing the POV dispute. 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look in books I see that there is debate over the meaning of the word infringed. Per WP:Policy, we should include all credibly reliable sides in that debate in the article. Presently the article suppresses the side of the debate which is not pro-gun. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at a dictionary I can't quite find a debate on the meaning of the word. I do find the MEANING however. Why don't you start with that? 4.156.78.223 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.11.202 (talk)


 * No, it hasn't been stasis for 5+ years. But, the current lede is the result of the last 5+ years of discussions that is all contained in the 17 archives that are only a click away. Just read the archives, if you really do want to see how it got to where it is, today. And, incidentally, I do agree with SaltyBoatr, above, in that the best method to build consensus around here does not include making offensive personal attacks. It is much easier to build consensus from developing mutual respect that can only develop over time with a fixed name/handle. Changing IP identities/handles repeatedly doesn't help you in building consensus. It also keeps you banned while the article is blocked against edits by IP addresses. Because of this, it would really help, too, if you would take a username, rather than having a different IP every few days/hours. You really do have many valid points that need to get worked into the article. We just need to work on your methods a little :-) Yaf (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it REALLY difficult to develop mutual respect for people that keep on trying to ban me from posting. Look in the mirror to find one of those self appointed "censors".141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But, the bans have not been because of content, but, rather, technique. It's not censorship. Edit warring is not permitted, even for a "good" cause. Rather than block you the last time, the admin chose to instead apply semi-protection to the article, whereby anonymous IP editors could not continue to violate WP:3RR policies. Get a user name, and this problem goes away, immediately. Edit war with a user name, though, and you, like every other editor, will find yourself getting blocked repeatedly by admins, for progressively longer and longer times each block in succession. Many good editors start out with a few blocks, and then learn how to edit in a much more cooperative way. You would really benefit from getting a fixed user account name. And, you would be able to contribute more, too. You do have some very good points. Yaf (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Trying to remove an itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion likely held by only one person in the whole wide world, in ACCORDANCE with wiki guidelines, is a lot less edit warring then the actions of a person who wants to keep that itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion in defiance of wiki guidelines.141.154.11.202 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of 'books' try a dictionary. 'Infringement' means: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. For what purpose was the Second Amendment added? If we could reach a consensus on that, we could alter the lede accordingly. (Truwik (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC))


 * You are assuming that all the people here act in good faith. A bad assumption. Getting SaltyBoatr to say that the Second Amendment protects a right from government infringement, is about as hard a climbing Mt Everest with 2 broken legs. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no weight given to what I (or you) say. What matters is what the reliable sourcing says.  In the case of "infringement" I see that the reliable sourcing says that all sorts of restrictions on firearms are allowed as constitutional under the Second Amendment.  What Justice Scalia ruled has much more importance than your original research using your interpretation of the dictionary definition, and more importantly, the "longstanding prohibition" laundry list exception in Heller is now shaking out to be the tipping point.  Did you read the UCLA Law Review article about this?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Scalia ruled that the collective rights view was worthy of the "mad hatter"

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) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If SaltyBoatr refuses to acknowledge the 2A's purpose, how could he be taken seriously, here, anymore? His statement "all sorts of restrictions on firearms are allowed as constitutional under the Second Amendment" is true, as to past federal restrictions from U.S. v. Miller to Heller, but no longer. In Heller (p. 53) the Court said: "We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. (Truwik (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC))


 * He talks big, and he knows the ins and outs of getting you banned. 68.160.162.23 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How is one banned? Didn't I read somewhere SaltyBoatr was banned once? I should think cramming the article with irrelevent fillers would be grounds for that. (Truwik (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC))


 * He and Yaf have gotten me banned 4 times now. The current ban is a ban on IP uses, aimed speciically at me, from editing the article teh article and ends on the 6th.68.160.162.23 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As to 'consensus' there doesn't seem to be a way to establish one, at least, one binding on all editors. Editing wars are discouraged, and rightly so, yet one editor can reinstall a deleted item - repeatedly - even after a supposed consensus has been reached on deletion. As to 'infringed', a consensus is impossible. Heller said: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment." How many editors would agree with that? (Truwik (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC))


 * If no consensus can be reached then you go with what dissatisfies the least number of people, barring violations of perverting material to mean what it plainly does not.141.154.76.26 (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is law. True, a negative law, but nonetheless a constitutional law, and it means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means. If this Article is to be a reliable source for the legal field, editors must simply reflect what the High Court holds, as verfiable, historical fact. That would be a neutral position for this Article. Loving or hating these decisions may be expressed in a separate section under pros and cons. (Truwik (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

The Highest Court in the land, whose duty it is to determine the meaning of constitutional law (Marbury v. Madison), has stated that the Second Amendment can only be violated by Congress (U.S. v. Cruikshank), and if another High Court has considered and affirmed that (Presser v. Illinois), and if yet another High Court has reaffirmed that (D.C. v. Heller), then it is fixed binding law that the Second Amendment restriction applies exclusively to the federal government. Deliberately failing to proclaim that in the lede, amounts to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371) which is a felony. Think about it. (Truwik (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * i hope you're joking, because that's an utterly preposterous claim. if so, good one! Anastrophe (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It actually has a some amount of truth to it. Premeditate group action against rights protected by the US Constitution, with the intent to deprive, can amount to Conspiracy. However, to be a Conspiracy two or more people need to "conspire" and I can certainly see how an attempt to deprive someone of his rights can be a "defrauding". Although the ones defrauded are the People, and not the US itself. Extreme actions of this nature can even amount to making someone a "domestic enemy" of the Constitution, and the actions may go so far as to be an "undeclared war" on it and the principles it protects.


 * The oath of citizenship, and many other oaths, recognize "domestic enemies" - I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same141.154.9.221 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * um, no. the claim above was that failing to proclaim in the lede of this article that the 2nd only applies to the feds, would be a case of defrauding the united states. which is pure fantasy. the first amendment trumps such silly suggestions. nobody is deprived of their rights by failing to note something in the lede of a wikipedia article. period. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy "to defraud the United States" part of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 requires proving an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an over act. However, "The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government..." Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 479 (1910). And, "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carring out the governmental intentiion." Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924).

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. U.S., 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987). Thus, proof that the U.S. has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. U.S. v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985)(aff'd, sub. nom. in Tanner).

I should think that conspiring to obstruct the National Government from keeping the 2A restriction placed upon it, by, here, misrepresenting the amendment's purpose, to the world at large, would easily qualify for such a Sec. 371 lawsuit - at least against Wikipedia. (Truwik (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC))


 * fascinating speculations, but the article makes no such misrepresentations. just because the lede doesn't contain your favorite text doesn't mean the article is lacking those points. i believe your speculations are without merit. either way, they can't be substantiated, and they're not a basis for modifying the lede. if you'd like to alert wikimedia of your concerns, knock yourself out. but your speculations here aren't helpful, and could be read to be an attempt to intimidate other editors into conforming the lede to your desired version on threat of disruption of wikipedia. are you planning on contacting the feds to alert them to this conspiracy? aren't there laws that require someone to alert the authorities if they are aware of an attempt to defraud the federal government? you might be considered a co-conspirator if you fail to alert the authorities. have fun. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

By leaving to whom "shall not be infringed" applies, out of the lede, the Second Amendment is misrepresented by implying that the restriction applies to the world-at-large or, at least, to all of the States rather than just to the federal government, which could well be construed as a conspiracy, by we editors, to defraud the United States. (Truwik (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * you've said that already. there is no implication - you are inferring, based upon your predispositional reading. since the lede does not even mention infringement, your claim is without merit. please review the lede of articles for the other amendments. some mention incorportion, some don't. you continue to make what constitutes a legal threat, with what i would infer is a threat of disruption of wikipedia if other editors don't fall in line with your opinion of how the article should be edited. that's not appreciated, not supported by policy, and is sanctionable. please stop. if you are aware of a conspiracy and fail to report it to the feds, you're a co-conspirator. either do what you claim needs to be done, or cease this line of discussion. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed obama quote from 'presidential administrations' sect
the quote is from june of 2008. at that time, he was a presidential candidate. it is therefore obviously not applicable to the section in question. Anastrophe (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did you remove? If it was a statement of his political views on the topic of the Second Amendment, they have likely not changed. FlashHawk4 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * that may be, but it's immaterial to the rationale for removal. Anastrophe (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi All, I'm not a US citizen not a resident; but find this article (and related ones) very interesting. Can anyone please tell what is the position of President Obama related to the issue of bearing arms by US citizens/residents? Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past Obama has worked religiously for gun control. The fear that he will pass laws further regulating guns and ammo has made gun and ammo sales one of the few growth sectors of the current economy. Sales are up about 50% from last year.68.160.140.142 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Civilian meaning unbalanced
If you have the Cramer critique of military use you need the Uviller/Merkel and Cornell critique of civilian usage. The Tench Coxe quote acutally does not discuss the use of weapons, but ownership. One can have private ownership of weapons for a public purpose. Also, the Dissent of the Minority is a controversial text and many have argued that it was not representative. Sorry have not had time to learn wiki style for notes. Still, given the bias that appears to creep into this essay, better to have someone who knows the issue, but is not up on wiki style than more people up on the  wiki style who don't really know the issue or are so biased they can't be fair and balanced about their edits. Conlawgeek (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the wiki style for notes. Just type in the citation, author/book/page and other editors can help you out with the formatting or footnoting of the reference.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What Cramer, Uviller/Merkel, Cornell and other scholars say about civilian usage of weapons is meaningless here. The Article is about to whom "shall not be infringed" applies. Heller "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government," which only means Congress may no longer infringe on an individual's right in the District of Columbia - and other federal territories if similarly challenged. Neither the 2A nor Heller applies to individual rights within the States. (Truwik (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The Ninth Circuit's decision in Nordyke v. King this month has confirmed that statement. That Court cited and quoted Cruikshank and Presser then stated: "Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the States." (Truwik (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

snippet image of BoR
i'm not crazy about it. none of the other BoR articles use a snippet image from the source document. most of the amendments link to the full image - i think it would be ideal if all articles on amendments linked to the full image, in the same order image stack on the right, for consistency across the articles. that's not to say that i'm dramatically against it either. it's more a visual preference - it would look better if it had a border perhaps. but again, i think consistency across all the amendment articles would be preferable, and more encyclopaedic. i invite other editors to weigh in. remarkably, this isn't a POV issue, or a contentious issue that i can think of; thus perhaps a pleasant respite in which we can argue about something other than our differences. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't like it, the feng shui is all wrong. Plus its hard to read.141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'visual preference' and 'feng shui' carry much less weight than the true goal here which is: conveying information. The cropped version of the Bill of Rights, focusing just on the 2A conveys information best.  After all the second hand descriptions of the 2A we have read, how often do we take a look directly at the physical writing of the text? The readers of this article can benefit from taking a direct look at a physical image.   Making the image available, in high resolution, is a powerful information service to the readers that trumps the aesthetic.  Encyclopedias are about providing information, and the high resolution image does that well.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "hard to read"? Looking at it gives me eye strain.141.154.15.7 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This Article should reflect that the Second Amendment is a part of the restrictive Bill of Rights, which in turn should quote the first paragraph of its Preamble which states the BoR purpose. Viewing the 2A out of that context is what created the general misunderstanding that the amendment's restriction applies to all government legislatures, while just 10 months ago the Supreme Court "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." This is dramatically proved by the historical fact that no court - state or federal - has ever held a state law in violation of the 2A. This Article needs to so-set Americans straight. (Truwik (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The Ninth Circuit's Nordyke v. King decision this month, the lawsuit that first "incorporated" the Second Amendment per Heller, just underscored that. (Truwik (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

POV problems
This is growing tiresome, when I try to enter dialog about the POV problem I get stonewalled. Then Yaf, for the sixth time, simply removes the POV tag instead. Let me try to summarize the POV problems I see as needing fixing.

1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.

2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.

3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.

4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.

5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.

6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)

7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign, this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.


 * 8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the POV tag to alert readers that this issue is being discussed here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting tiresome. When asked for specifics, all that gets mentioned in return are claims of systemic "pro-gun" bias, with repeated claims of "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that, again and again and again and again and again. This after the earlier identified "problems" with "ablative absolute" and prefatory clause discussions were all fixed. I find it hard to believe that the section of the article in the intro and in the next section regarding the statement of the two versions of the Amendment are together somehow permeated with "systemic pro-gun bias". Yet, as long as the article remains with a claim of systemic bias by just one editor, with no indications of specifics to fix, and with the one dissenting editor claiming every edit made other than by him is somehow "pro-gun", it is impossible to fix the non-existent "problems". Hoplophobia is what is apparently preventing the improvement of this article. I think the earlier comment that this article can never achieve NPOV, without a POV tagline, due to one editor, only, is likely accurately "on-the-mark". Attempts at 3rd Opinion have failed. Informal and formal mediation have failed. All because of one editor. Perhaps it is time to go back to ArbCom, what with the ArbCom members having changed. (The mediator of the formal mediation, who previously recommended the old ArbCom members take this case to resolve the problem with the one editor, is now himself on the ArbCom. Likewise for another mediator, who herself is now on the ArbCom.) Perhaps it is now time for seeing if the newly elected ArbCom will grant "cert" and take this case. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on SB's comments above, have tagged individual paragraphs. Lets focus on identifying specific problems, not claiming "systemic pro-gun bias" for everything. Yaf (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Have self reverted, now that SB has tagged the whole article again. Guess we are not to try to fix specific problems, then, but just claim the article has systemic bias and leaved it tagged POV forever? Yaf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You misinterpreted my comments. You also have not responded to my comments and questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And just what was your question, SB? I didn't see a question. (in diatribes #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the other number 6. 7.) Yaf (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the talk page above, and the talk page archives. The way to bring this dispute to an end is to discuss our disagreement and come to agreement. Instead I am repeatedly stonewalled. Asking again one of these questions: Yaf, could you please point to an example of a reliable source which you view as being written with a neutral point of view? I would like to know your thoughts on this so I (we) may better understand your position. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerous such sources (Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.) But, the relevance to writing Wikipedia articles implicit with your question is non-existent. The goal of Wikipedia is to include multiple cited sources, not a single source, for writing articles, such that all major points of view are included. Your proposal is therefore a red herring, that will accomplish nothing, as you consider all edits other than those reflecting your own POV as "pro-gun", and bitterly disagree with all edits other than your own edits (which are relatively few, I might add). Such editor behavior is borderline disruptive, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (WP:DFTT?) Yet, the historical record is clear; the individual right interpretations of the Second Amendment came before the collective right interpretations, which both came before the civic duty interpretations. And, the first interpretations of the Second Amendment occurred in state jurisprudence, for both the individual and collective right interpretations. Yet, you insist on censorship of all such cited historical facts, cited with reliable and verifiable sources, that present other than the modified collective right interpretations consistent with service in a select militia, that didn't become formalized until the early 20th Century.  This approach ignores nearly 150 years of the earlier history of the Second Amendment, or perhaps 175 years of the history, if one considers the history for the first 150 years coupled with the recent history for the last 25 years. And, you continually conflate the history of militia and militia laws with the Second Amendment, despite being that such topics are about entirely different subjects than the Second Amendment. It would be much the same if I insisted that all your edits to the article were "anti-rights", and claimed that the article was full of systemic bias that is "anti-rights", and if I also tried to conflate the First through the Tenth Amendments to being equivalent with the Second Amendment. This would be no different than what you have done over the last 3.5 years, under all your "handles" on Wikipedia. You have also committed a POV fork with the creation of the Right to keep and bear arms article, which you began as a POV fork of this very article, while trying to scrub individual right content and state jurisprudence content regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment out of the Second Amendment article. Meanwhile, we have gone through Third Opinion. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through informal mediation. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through formal mediation twice. (Both unsuccessful.) We have gone before ArbCom once. (They ducked the issue.) And we have expended megabytes of discussion on the talk pages, all to no avail. The dispute could end today, if you would but accept article content based on cited, reliable, and verifiable sources presenting other than a collective right interpretation for a select militia. (By the way, who is the "I (we)" to which you refer?) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. (I am ignoring the portions of your reply which are a personal attack.) You see as neutral the writings of Vin Suprynowicz, a libertarian opinion columnist and author of the book _Send in the Waco Killers_, a book with an illustration of the Statue of Liberty holding an assault rifle on the cover. I respect that point of view, but please explain how that is a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view must fairly understand and describe the point of view of the opposition. For instance, can you give an example of the Suprynowicz style of wording which is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. For instance, the subject of common sense gun law in relation to the Second Amendment. Give an example of neutral wording, please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on the topic. Suprynowicz is useful primarily for documenting popular opinions that currently exist regarding the Second Amendment, for ob-relevance to the current discussion. I fail to see where his collection of old essays on the Waco siege are relevant to writing this article on the Second Amendment. Suprynowicz was also a Vice Presidential candidate of the Libertarian party. Should any politician or author, regardless of political party, be used as the sole source for writing an article on Wikipedia? Of course not. But, the opinions of such folk are certainly useful for documenting opinions that exist, which are often entirely appropriate for inclusion in an article for arriving at a balanced treatment of an article topic. (Incidentally, Suprynowicz's use of irony, ridicule, and satire are not new concepts; they have been used for millennia, see, for example ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes). As stated previously, no single source is appropriate for writing an article on Wikipedia, contrary to what you propose. Your proposed use of a "sole source" for citation in writing this article remains a red herring, intended for drawing the dogs of opinion off into irrelevant byways. Lets focus on the topic at hand. Namely, using a wide range of citations, from reliable and verifiable sources for writing this article. This approach would produce the best article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. The issue is the neutrality balance point. Your excess focus on WP:RS is selective and evades the POV problem. Neutrality and verifiability: it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion.. See the 8 items I listed above, there remains an unaddressed neutrality problem with this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And so we return once again to the same old complaint, namely, all edits must pass your sole approval, else they reflect "systemic pro-gun bias", because this article attracts editors other than yourself who do not have your keen sense of the proper balance point for the article, especially made difficult since your viewpoint is removed from the actual balance point of the sum total of all neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. This article shouldn't read like a Brady Campaign poster, with Paul Helmke talking points or Saul Cornell comments, exclusively. (They represent only 2 of the 3 major viewpoints regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment.) The Supreme Court view of the Second Amendment, too, is considered by you to be an extreme POV, which should be excised from the article, except for the minority opinion in the Heller decision, because they just got it wrong according to SaltyBoatr. All major viewpoints should be contained in the article. But, I along with other editors have stated this over and over, including through formal MedCom arbitration, and you have always refused to compromise. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. I see no path to resolving this non-existant "POV issue" between one editor versus a large number of editors, who see no POV problems, and that you therefore insist on calling names (namely, "pro-gun"), for their clear lack of sensitivity that you, solely, possess. This is not The SaltyBoatr's Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. But, of course, you don't believe this. Too bad. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the character attacks please. I asked you for an example of neutral wording found in reliable sourcing and you pointed to well known advocacy authors David Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, Vin Suprynowicz. Can we agree that neutrality is not advocacy? That seems to be the root of our disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked for an example of a reliable source who writes with a neutral point of view. In return, I mentioned several: Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.. All of these are neutral sources. Yes, I know you disagree with the SCOTUS, but it is a neutral source, nonetheless. Likewise, Halbrook, Cramer, and Kopel are well-respected historians, who have no clouds of academic malfeasance or misconduct hanging over them like Michael A. Bellesiles. Bellisiles is not an appropriate source, having been forced out of Emory University over academic malfeasance regarding his book and published papers, having made up results from records that were destroyed in the Great San Francisco Earthquake. Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize award from Columbia University was rescinded, too, for his book. Yet, if I recall correctly, you used quotes from his book under your other Wikipedia handle to slant this article based upon his now discredited and retracted formerly prize winning book, only backing down when held to task for pushing a proven discredited and non-reliable source. Suprynowicz is a well-respected syndicated columnist and sometimes politician, who again has no malfeasance hanging over him. All of these sources I mentioned are suitable as neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If you would prefer Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and Paul Helmke, who are generally associated with being strong advocates of the NRA and the Brady Campaign, respectively, that is fine, too, provided we include a balance of sources to represent all major points of view and don't list just, say, Paul Helmke's talking points, to which you continually point to with the Brady Campaign quotes and cites. But calling the Supreme Court of the United States, and well-respected historians, writers, and politicians "well known advocacy authors" is entirely inappropriate just because they don't agree with "The SaltyBoatr's View of the World". Yaf (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I raised eight specific POV issues, and Yaf since has written several thousand words, none addressing my eight specific concerns. Mostly Yaf is attacking my personal character and straw men. Instead of addressing my eight specific issues, Yaf responds with delay tactics and diversion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No delays, no diversions. The 8 "points" are totally without merit, reducing instead to the single issue of non-conformance with The SaltyBoatr View of the World, which has been discussed at length. It is senseless to play the same old SB game played previously in Formal Mediation, in which the goal posts were moved each and every time in response to attempts to address SB's lengthy lists of points/"questions". Each attempt at answering a point/"question" only leads to additional lists of points/"questions". They multiply geometrically. Ad nauseum. I refuse to play, but choose instead to address the real issues. Yaf (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, you referred to SaltyBoatr's "other Wikipedia handle". Does he still use that "handle"? What's the history regarding that "handle"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed my username a long time ago. Can we please discuss the article instead of me?  I was asked to explain the POV tag.  I explained myself by itemizing eight specific concerns.  Since, all I see are several thousand words questioning my personal character and attacking straw men.  Zero words written about the eight specific issues.  Can we get to work here?  Focus on the article, thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although SaltyBoatr added the SaltyBoatr name "a long time ago" (March 2007), checking logs shows SaltyBoatr does still use the other handle. In all fairness, he has not violated any 3RR edit warring sanctions using his old name simultaneous to the new name. It is a non-issue, and I respect SaltyBoatr's right to privacy.  What is important about this is that the current POV dispute dates to several years earlier than the "SaltyBoatr" name, and nothing has changed regarding his claims of "systemic pro-gun bias" in this and other articles. Relative to the 8 current points:


 * 1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.
 * The claim that the wording of the 2A is itself proof of "originalism and textualism" is bogus. It is simply statement of historical fact.  Quoting the 2A is not excessive reliance of a "theory of originalism and textualism", but simply quotes the Amendment's wording, much like every other article on US Constitution amendments.  The article clearly states that regulation of concealed firearms is not a violation of the the 2A.  The text of the 2A is, itself, not "pro-gun".  This point is a non-issue.


 * 2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.
 * There is no original research concerning "concealed carry" theory in the article. Rather, the meaning of the Second Amendment that occurred in state jurisprudence evolved over time, and this history is important for understanding the history of the interpretation of the 2A.  Yes, in Bliss, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and even the former Attorney General of the United States did both arrive at the conclusion that the 2A protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms even if the arms were kept and borne as concealed carry arms.  However, as the article also points out, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1897 to clear up this misconception that regulating concealed carry did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Again, the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights; it only discusses the change of interpretation that evolved over time.  This second point is a non-issue.


 * 3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.
 * For such a contentious topic, it is impossible to pick, say, talking points from the Brady Campaign or likewise from the NRA as a single cited source for defining a neutral tone and quoting such talking points solely. There are no neutral tone sources available for such a contentious topic.  Instead, the article seeks to achieve balance by including cited statements from all sides of the debate (individual right, collective right, and civic duty) and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.  Pushing a Brady Campaign agenda is not setting a neutral tone.


 * 4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.
 * Inclusion of the Militia Act of 1903, and similar lengthy definitions and history of the National Guard, have little to no bearing on the history of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, if credible sources are found claiming otherwise, then such content would be suitable.  But, the inclusion of such musings without any cites claiming relevance to the Second Amendment are just Original Research, and must be struck from the article.


 * 5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.
 * The short statements excerpted from these court cases are stated neutrally and are properly cited, with no judgmental tone. Just because the results of these court cases doesn't agree with The SaltyBoatr View of the World is no reason for claiming "pro-gun bias".  (I fail to see how the US Supreme Court can be considered to have "pro-gun bias".)


 * 6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)
 * If properly cited content is added, there is no problem. The lack of sources making such claims, however, is a problem when content conflating the Militia Act of 1903 with the Second Amendment is made without any sourcing.  It is simply Original Research that must be kept out of the article.  However, as noted in the article the vast majority of 40 papers and even the Supreme Court in Heller has found that a right of personal firearms for self defense and a collective use of personal firearms in a militia and a guarantee of the people to have the ability for establishing a resistance against Government tyrrany are precisely what the Second Amendment is all about.  These points have all been written and cited with numerous sources.  If there is a lack of sources claiming otherwise, it is not an indication of "systemic pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment" in this article.


 * 7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign, this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.
 * Pushing the points of views of agendas of the Brady Campaign, or of the Gun Owners of America, that come from either end of the political spectrum, represents the pushing of agendas far removed from the mainstream. Neither of these points are present to any great extent in the article at present.  Instead, the article uses sourcing representing the bulk of the reliable sources from the mainstream.  That said, there is no problem with adding small amounts of even fringe beliefs from organizations such as these, provided such content is not expanded to the point of deletion of content representing the majority of reliable and verifiable sources.  But, calling minority views from either the Brady Campaign or the Gun Owners of America worthy of equal weight with majority views from neutral sources such as the Supreme Court of the United States is not according to standard Wikipedia practice.


 * 8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other.
 * I fail to understand how the modern militia movement has any great bearing on an article on the Second Amendment. Should content representing neo-Nazis, skinheads, and such be added to this article, expressing their beliefs in the Second Amendment and their rights to keep and bear arms?  This hardly seems reasonable.  A statement or two at most is probably all that should even be considered here.  Again, there needs to be reliable and verifiable sources for making any such claims, rather than just adding Original Research.  Yaf (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being an expert in the second amendment, I have kept quiet around many of the issues around this discussion page. One of the points made in the ongoing discussion, however, seems biased enough to warrant comment: the comparison of the Brady Campaign to the Gun Owners of America. To compare an extreme gun rights organization with a mainstream gun control organization is clearly biased - The Brady campaign is clearly not a "fringe" group in the same way the GOA is. A more valid comparison would be the Brady Campaign with the NRA - These two organizations both have clearly shown more willingness to compromise on gun control issues than the GOA (The GOA's F rating of John McCain should be clear evidence of this). The implications here for sourcing should be obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To call a gun control organization such as the Brady Campaign as "mainstream" is also a form of bias.  And, the NRA is itself considered an extreme organization by members of JPFO and GOA, for example. And, many NRA members consider the GOA to be an extreme organization, formed from the more radical former members of the NRA, who left the NRA over a dispute.  Even the League of Women Voters, and several churches, for example, are likewise advocacy groups on this topic.  "Mainstream", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Use of such wording should be avoided in writing articles.  Similarly, use of talking points from any of these such advocacy groups should likewise be largely deprecated.  For this reason, I have proposed we stay away from talking points of the Brady Campaign, the NRA, the JPFO, and the GOA alike, along with other advocacy organizations, to achieve the best balance. (If you note, I also do compare the NRA to the Brady Campaign above; the comparisons chosen depend on the context of the comparison.)  Yes, both the Brady Campaign and the NRA have been more prone to compromise, but this also makes them more suspect in the eyes of many, who do not see any advantage to surrendering any inalienable rights.) Sources should be mostly selected from peer reviewed works of non-tainted academics, respected books such as chosen by the courts in documenting court cases, and from court case transcripts themselves, along with other neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources, in citing this article.  To do otherwise is to fall into the pit of opinion and advocacy arguments, ad infinitum, which only throws "more petrol onto the fyre."  Yaf (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why I favor sticking to middle ground book sources, published and fact checked by well respected publishing houses. I do not advocate for extremist advocacy from either side of the debate.  There is plenty of objective published neutral scholarship.  I favor Macmillan/McGraw-Hill over Shotgun News.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would certainly agree with both Yaf and SaltyBoatr that all advocacy organizations should be avoided as sources except to demonstrate minority POVs. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 7 Neutrality Tone balance

 * then why did you reference an advocacy group in point seven, rather than a reliable source? Anastrophe (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will assume your question is asked in good faith. The point I was trying to make is that the neutrality balance of the article should fall at a neutral balance point located in the middle, between the various credible points of views. On one side is the point of view of Paul Helmke as seen on HuffingtonPost.com in the link I provided and on the other side are the points of views of Vin Suprynowicz and Clayton Cramer editorial columnists for ShotgunNews.com. Yaf has said that he views Suprynowicz and Cramer as good examples of "neutral wording". This article skews unduly towards being sympathetic of the views of Suprynowicz and Cramer. This article skews away from the point of view of Helmke. This indicates a POV WP:UNDUE balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is precisely one cite to Cramer, footnote no. 84. There is precisely one lengthy quote and a cite to Helmke, footnote no. 40. By your reasoning, we should expand Cramer's content to include a quote, too, to achieve balance. There are no cites to Suprynowicz. Collectively, this indicates no POV WP:UNDUE balance problem, statistically speaking. Cramer and Suprynowicz have also written for the Wall Street Journal. But, you chose a weekly trade newspaper to attach their syndicated work to. OK. That is just an example of POV pushing. I get it. Meanwhile, Helmke has also written for the Huffington Post, and for the Wall Street Journal. I don't see a significant difference here, among the publishing outlets for any of these authors. The ad hominem attacks on Cramer and Suprynowicz, meanwhile, are not conducive to judging the appropriateness of their work for use in citing information in this article. The more serious allegation of "POV WP:UNDUE balance problem" seems unfounded, statistically speaking. Rather, it seems to be just a case of more POV pushing. This is not appropriate. Yaf (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You twist my words. I was talking of neutrality balance point and tone. The point of view of Paul Helmke about Heller and the 2A being consistent with "common sense gun laws", as he expressed in the editorial in the link I provided, is an example of the point of view missing in the article. That point of view is entirely missing. And, the overall tone of the article skews sympathetic to Cramer and Suprynowicz. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit protection lifted
Due to recent legal developments, edit protection is lifted to allow this article to be updated. - Davodd (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * er, what? can you clarify? do you mean legal developments pertaining to the 2nd amendment, or legal developments pertaining to wikimedia/wikipedia? Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nordyke v. King - 9th Circuit incorporated the individual right to keep and bear arms against the states. see: http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1337884565 - Davodd (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't true. Nordyke held the 2A only applies directly to the federal government. See above. (Truwik (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Although I can participate in the discussion group and make minor grammar and formatting adjustments - I cannot myself make substantive edits on this issue since I was part of the legal team (as a 3rd-year law student/paralegal/clerk) representing the Nordykes. [On the original briefs filed with the court, you will see my name and signature on proofs of service]. But I can tell you that you are both right and wrong. Each of the rights of the Bill of rights only "directly" applies to the federal government. But years later when the 14th Am. was passed, the concept of U.S. Citizenship trumping state citizenship was codified in the Constitution. The 14th Am said that states are not allowed to deny U.S. citizens certain of their federal rights. And those certain rights are decided on a case-by-case basis - a process which started in the first half of the 20th Century. Nordyke v. King was the first federal court that said that 14th Am. provision also applies to the 2nd Am. right to keep and bear arms. So there is direct application - "Congress shall make no..." which is federal only and incorporation under the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law..." - Davodd (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing Tushnet comment under Background"
Currently the following appears in Background

Similarly, in his book, Out of Range, Mark Tushnet concluded that the historical and legal arguments over the Second Amendment were so evenly balanced that it was difficult to conclusively prove what the Amendment originally meant[6].

cite 6 which is supposed to back up this quote states

"As with many constitutional provisions, there's no definitive answer to what the Second Amendment means."

There is a substantial difference between the material in the article and the citation, and I am adjusting the article to more closely follow the citation.141.154.78.247 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tushnet was referring to arguments over the scope of the Right not the Amendment. The Right existed in the States (with each one regulating it a little differently) before they created the National Government. The Amendment simply says "the right [however it is perceived in the States]...shall not be infringed" by the federal government. What's not to understand? (Truwik (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

"of" vs. "to"
i don't think it should be "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" as the title. what i mean is the to in it. Second Amendment of the United States Constitution seems to be proper English. i don't want to change it because i think it should be over looked then someone can change it him self —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.137.158 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "to" is correct. Amendments are made to the Constitution. The word "of" is used regarding the original articles (e.g. Article Two of the United States Constitution). SMP0328. (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SMP0328, it should be "Second Amendment to..." (Truwik (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Removed unsourced material
I have removed the following material from the Reconstruction subsubsection of the Early commentary in state courts subsection of the Judicial interpretations section:"In contrast, New York University law professor William Nelson has argued that there were two different views of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. One conception pointed to a notion of equality of rights, while another pointed to something like a core of basic rights protected by the first eight Amendments. The argument of Nelson's book, The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine, represents one side of the incorporation debate. The opposing viewpoint is represented by the work of Michael Kent Curtis, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights." This material is unsourced and has been cited as such for weeks. Once proper sourcing is added, this material can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Trial of the Wards (1854)
Yaf: Which former U.S. Atty. Gen. expressed an opinion about Bliss that related to the 2A? Please quote what he said. Thank you. Yaf's statement: "the early 19th Century interpretation was that any infringing...was prohibited by the Second Amendment...thereby precluding any regulations...by state law," is incorrect. Show us a state law that cites the 2A as authority for it, or a state legislative record where the 2A was considered when enacting a state firearms law. Or a state or federal court decision where a state law was determined to have violated the 2A. If no editor can produce such evidence, all state court cases must be removed from this article.

Ward was not about the 2A, it was about whether the Ward brothers had violated a state law, or acted in self-defense, in the shooting-death of Mr. Butler. (Truwik (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Have to disagree with the total removal of "all" state court cases. Many of them, such as Nunn, do in fact rule on the right to "keep and bear arms". Ward and at least one other, do not, and need to removed.141.154.12.116 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I meant all state cases that made no mention at all of the 2A, such as Bliss, Buzzard and Ward. I actually added this topic this morning, the talk-page topic list didn't have the first Ward entry. Now its back, if you would like to delete this and keep all this together that would be fine. My opening statement here is at that topic now. (Truwik (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC))


 * The former U.S. Atty. General was John J. Crittenden of Kentucky. He was lead counsel on Ward's defense team. As for an example, the Kentucky state law on trial with Bliss was viewed by some as having violated the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Crittenden's defense in Ward simply built on the defense first advanced in Bliss, coming along a few years later. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If he had something to say regarding the intent or purpose of the Second Amendment then that comment may have a place in the article. However that place s not under case law, or judicial interpretation or whatever you next decide to change the title to in order to bolster your position. Judicial interpretation is by definition interpretation by the judge. An attorney general in not a judge and further is not even a member of the Judicial Branch. Please now tell us what that something is, that he said, that is so important, that it merits a place in the article.141.154.12.116 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Yaf, if John Crittenden said something at the Ward trial, that related to the 2A, then quote him and cite the source for that info. Citing Bliss as an example of how 'some' viewed another Kentucky law as violative of the 2A, is, at best, hearsay. And with no one at the Bliss trial mentiioning the 2A, either, it's hearsay twice-removed. If Bliss was so 'viewed-by-some', then name and quote them, and cite a source. (Truwik (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

I just removed 'Ward'. (Truwik (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC))


 * And I restored it. The cited quotation due to the former US Atty General was contained in the content that was removed.  This interpretation of 2A history is highly relevant.  It belongs here.  Yaf (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, please take a moment to explain why coverage of this obscure 19th Century incident in state law is relevant in this federal article? I dispute that it is "highly relevant", it is at best a minor curiosity, trivial today.    Point to the reliable sourcing gives "highly relevant" coverage, I have looked and the coverage is brief and passing at best.  The Ward case (as with Bliss) are too trivial to give coverage in this mainstream article, clear violations of WP:UNDUE policy.  Explain your WP:OWN defensive for this passage, going on for more than a year now.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The content in question is: Reference to Bliss is seen in the defense argument subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”
 * The importance is that the successful defense in this case by a former US Atty General specifically provides an example of state law being guided by an interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Saul Cornell is considered reliable sourcing by most historians. "Hearsay" is not applicable here. Rather, "hearsay" in terms of published content in reliable and verfiable sources is instead citeable in terms of supporting article text regarding this early interpretation of the Second Amendment. Subsequent article text then states that this early interpretation of the Second Amendment has largely vanished, save for two states.   Seems highly relevant to me, unless one supports the goal to suppress much of the early history of Second Amendment interpretations.  But, Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored.   Yaf (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a historian isn't aware of the usage of the term "well regulated" during the Revolutionary War ere, then he can hardly be called a reliable source. If he knows what it means and then lies in order to push is pet theory, then he is most certainly NOT a reliable source.68.160.162.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Yaf, you said: "The cited quotation due to the former US Atty General was contained in the content that was removed." Where? Your Ward-case account quotes the Kentucky court and what Cornell said about it, but there is nothing therein that is attributed to "the former US Atty General." Your next statement: "...this case by a former US Atty General specifically provides...an interpretation of the Second Amendment..." is pure POR. The Ward trial made no mention of the 2A, and you obviously have no reliable source to backup your claim, that it did. Remove the Ward case. (Truwik (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

At the time of the Ward trial, John J. Crittenden was a U.S. Senator - not the U.S. Atty. General. The Ward trial transcript contains no mention of the Second Amendment, by anyone. Sen. Crittenden gave the defense's closing summary to the jury, but his "exhaustive speech" which preceded his conclusion is nowhere to be found. A book at Google.com stated: "Hon. John J. Crittenden closed the case for the defense. His argument dealt almost exclusively with the facts of the case. ...after an exhaustive speech to the jury, Mr. Crittenden concludes:" The next 6 pages in this book (pp. 171-177) have his conclusion which dwelt compassionately on Matthew Ward's fine character, his fine upbringing and education, and what a shame it would be to end his life with a verdict of "guilty." But nowhere was any reference made to the 2A, he rather quoted a Psalm and some other scripture. When he finished, the crowd inside wept and when the "not guilty" verdict was announced, they cheered. The thousands amassed outside, made effigies of the Ward brothers, set them on fire, and threw them against the court's entrance door, setting it on fire. Yaf's statement that this is "an example of state law being guided by an interpretation of the Second Amendment" is pure imagination. The state law in Ward required the "death penalty" for "murder." (Truwik (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

(After I removed 'Ward', Yaf restored it (6 hrs. later). Then 12 minutes after Yaf restored it, SaltyBoatr asked Yaf to explain why this old case is relevant to this Article. Then (22 minutes later) Yaf explained, which probably took most of that time to type and save it. It's like Yaf and SaltyBoatr are in the same room.) All editors should agree to remove this Ward case. If we start adding all state cases that involved use of weapons, to this Article, it will be an encyclopedia in itself. (Truwik (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * This WP:OWN defensive editing pattern regarding the "Early Commentary in State Courts" case has nearly a two year history here. Beyond question of the Ward case is also the relevance of the Kentucky state law case "Bliss" here in a federal article, the Bliss relevancy hinges on Yaf's 1967 Google snippet quote which no one here appears to have actually read in full context.  Huge WP:REDFLAG problems never addressed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any Court opinion out of Ward that justifies it with a place in the article. I continue to believe that there is no reason to keep it. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bliss is well cited as being an interpretation that the Second Amendment applied within states against state laws. Ward is further well cited as providing relevance and additional information that even a former US Atty General felt that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms within states, and that he agreed with the interpretation from Bliss. Bliss clearly is relevant for the early interpretation that the Second Amendment protected concealed carry against infringement by the state.  Ward is relevant since it established that Bliss was not an anomaly.  Of course, these early interpretations of the Second Amendment did change, and, eventually, laws governing concealed carry within states were deemed not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms all the way up through the SCOTUS, and thus were not in violation of the Second Amendment. Yet, the original interpretation of the Second Amendment clearly had held that such laws were violative of the Second Amendment.  These cases clearly belong in a discussion on the early interpretations of the Second Amendment.  Other cases, at the state level, however, do not belong here, unless there is some relevance to the Second Amendment in those cases.  Bliss and Ward are both highly important in understanding the early history of Second Amendment interpretations, and belong here.  Other cases at the state level may or may not belong here, depending on their connections to the Second Amendment.  Yaf (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf claims "Bliss is well cited as being an interpretation that the Second Amendment applied within states against state laws." The "well cited" cite is to an exceedingly obscure 1967 document only visible in snippet view at Google Books, that no one around here seems to have read in context.  This obscure cite (footnote 93) is notable in that it is an extreme outlying source, and after exhaustive search no other source has been found that says similar.  I object based on WP:REDFLAG, and ask for more corroboration that Bliss pertains to the federal Second Amendment.  Yaf?  Please answer.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither Bliss nor Ward mentioned the Second Amendment because it has no application within the States. Yaf is attaching the entire subject of arms to the 2A because he apparently believes everything that is said about weapons somehow adjusts the meaning of the 2A to accommodate it. He focuses on the Right, not the Restriction. However, in our entire history, no state law has ever been held as violative of the 2A, by any court - state or federal. That fact alone proves the 2A's restriction applies only to the federal government, and that needs to made clear in this Article by removing these two cases. Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Heller cited "Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, 91-92 (Ky. 1822)" in footnote 9, of the opinion (p. 12), then said: "These provisions demonstrate - again, in the most analogous linguistic context - that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia." The Court cited Bliss, and cases from 6 other states, there, as evidence that the right was being exercised by individuals who were not associaed with militias. It did not quote anything from those 7 state cases. Thus, Yaf's "Bliss is well cited as being an interpretation that the Second Amendment applied within the states against state laws" is pure hokum. It's an attempt to extend jurisdiction over the right to federal courts - the very thing the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent. (Truwik (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

In Crukshank, at page 552, the Court cited these 8 cases as pecedents which held the Bill of Rights restrictions do not apply to the States:

1.	Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall: “The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.” 2.	Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-2 (1833) Mr. Justice Curtis: “As to the [Bill of Rights] amendments of the Constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case, since it is now settled that these amendments do not extend to the states.” 3.	Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. 410 (1847) Mr. Justice Daniel: “The prohibitions contained in the [first ten] amendments to the constitution were intended to be restrictions upon the federal government, and not upon the authority of the states.” 4.	Smith v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 71, 76 (1855) Mr. Justice Curtis: The oath requirement before warrant to arrest in the Fourth Amendment “restrains the issue of warrants only under the laws of the United States, and has no application to state process.” 5.	Withers v. Buckley, 61 U.S. 84, 89-90 (1857) Mr. Justice Daniel: “To every person acquainted with the history of the Federal Government, it is familiarly known, that the ten amendments first engrafted upon the Constitution had their origin in the apprehension that in the investment of powers made by that instrument in the Federal Government, the safety of the States and their citizens had not been sufficiently guarded…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States…These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government, not against those of the local Governments.” 6.	Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 72 U.S. 475 (1866) Mr. Chief Justice Chase: The question was: Are “fines and penalties imposed and inflicted by the State law for offences charged in the indictment are excessive, cruel, and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment. Said the Court: “Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to the State but to National legislation.” 7.	Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 74 U.S. 321 (1868) Mr. Chief Justice Chase: Twitchell had claimed rights and privileges under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Court cited and quoted Fox v. Ohio, Smith v. Maryland, and Withers v. Buckley then held: “They [those previous findings] apply to the sixth as to any other of the amendments. It is certain that we can acquire no jurisdiction of the case of the petitioner by writ of error, and we are obliged therefore to refuse the writ.” 8.	Edwards v. Elliot, 88 U.S. 532 (1874) Mr. Justice Clifford: A state law was deemed to be in violation of the Sixth Amendment “right of trial by jury” where the “value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.” The Court held: “it does not apply to trials in the state courts.”

This original understanding of the Bill of Rights has never changed in State or Federal courts. All that changed was whether the "shall not be infringed" federal restriction in the Second Amendment applied to all arms or only military arms. But either way, it still only applied to federal legislation. (Truwik (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Not exactly true. The original understanding of the Bill of Rights in state courts has changed over time.  In 1822, the interpretation in Kentucky was as noted previously in Bliss, subsequently confirmed in Ward, that the Second Amendment forbad infringing on the right to keep and bear arms to such an extent that it even prevented states from regulating concealed weapons.  But, this early viewpoint largely changed over the next 50 or so years, in most states.  By 1875, when Cruikshank came along, the shift had been nearly completely made to your interpretation.  Yet, there would still be the later SCOTUS dicta addressing this change, too, namely in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), regarding that regulations that regulated concealed weapons were not in violation of the Second Amendment.  After 1897, there was nearly an universal interpretation that was as you state.  But, between 1822 and 1875, there was a shift occurring in opinion.  And, it is worth mentioning that there were/are two states that even to this day forbid regulating concealed weapons, based on their original interpretation of the Second Amendment, consistent with the decision in Bliss.  The original interpretations in these two states has not ever changed, either. So, your statement that the "original understanding of the Bill of Rights has never changed in State or Federal courts" is not exactly the correct interpretation, despite being technically true.  The interpretations in 48 other states has changed, however, from the original interpretation in Bliss, and even the interpretation in the Commonwealth of Kentucky has changed from what it was in 1822.  So, lets not confuse readers as to what happened in the past with what happened during Reconstruction and later, and as to what is the interpretation in 48 of the 50 states today.  Yaf (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, you appear to be describing a WP:Fringe theory, notable only because of the novelty, Kentucky justice. The concept of an early 19th Century incorporation, prior to Reconstruction, is an extreme fringe POV, given very much too heavy an emphasis in the article.  Fixing this problem is one step necessary in order to fix the longstanding WP:NPOV policy violations with this article.  Can you suggest some mutually acceptable compromises that might lead us out of this impasse?    SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "courts" interpretation has changed - BUT - what the Founders wanted done, remains what the Founders wanted done. History can't change that.68.163.100.160 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Here is a possible solution.  Acceptance of the current article text with cites verifying the text taken from reliable and verifiable sources, rather than a continual attempt to re-write history in this article.  That would solve the problem in its entirety.  The cited history is not fringe theory, being properly cited. It is simply fact. And, it is not about incorporation, either, that being a later, 14th Amendment and later, concept.  However, I fail to see what Alaska and Vermont have to do with your use of  "Kentucky Justice", though, as the description.  (They are the two states that have kept to the original interpretation of the Second Amendment first expoused in Kentucky, having never changed from the early interpretation of the Second Amendment that was common among several states in the early years (e.g., KY, GA, etc.).)  ("Kentucky Justice" was just the pejorative used in one of Saul Cornell's books, among other pro gun-control textbooks for denigrating  the Bliss case.  There were other, later cases, in other states that also agreed with this same interpretation, too.) Yaf (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, by repeating this dead issue, you're sounding like a broken record. Neither Ward nor Bliss said a word about the Bill of Rights, and that includes Sen. Crittenden's Speech to the Ward jury. He asked: "What is the law applicable in this case?" He went on to describe "Murder" and "manslaughter," but stated: "I shall contend that the case made by the evidence is neither murder nor manslaughter, but homicide in self-defense. He went on for another 8 pages (16 pages in all) but nowhere did he mention the U.S. Const., the Bill of Rights or the Sec. Amend. At the end he said: "This is [a] constitutional right, a natural right, a right given by our Creator, and which no human legislation can take away" (i.e. concerning Matthew Ward's inalienable right to possess pistols). He had said earlier to them "You are a jury of Kentucky...This is a Temple of Kentucky justice." How can these two cases be construed so "that the Sec. Amendment...even prevented states from regulating concealed weapons" when neither even mentioned the amendment, strongly suggests you believe the Right and the amendment are one-and-the-same thing. (You need to recall here that courts always cite and quote the law that has supposedly been violated. The fact that neither of these cases cited the amendment, proves it had nothing whatsoever to do with their decisions.) Your philosophy that changes in state arms-laws indicate how the 2A was viewed differently back then - without even mentioning it - is weird. Robertson' Dicta mention of the 2A had nothing to do with their decision, nor did it affect the meaning or purpose of the 2A. (Truwik (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

All editors should agree to remove the Ward case from this Article. The Article isn't about the right to arms, it's about to whom "shall not be infringed" applies. However one feels about arms, shouldn't enter into the equation. (Truwik (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I would submit that Yaf's purpose for retaining the Ward case in this Article is to illustrate the deadly consequences of private ownership of arms. While the Ward case is certainly evidence of that, it isn't relative to this 2A Article. Let's remember, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" (Cruikshank, at 553). And the Heller Court, citing its precedents Presser and Miller v. Texas reaffirmed that. The Wards' right to arms had no legal relationship to the 2A. They were born with the right. (Truwik (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Totally bogus commentary, bordering on a personal attack, while additionally presupposing or assigning a "motive" to another editor. And a false assumption at that, bordering on WP:SOAPBOX issues, too, regarding the "motive", I might add.  No, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the constitution; it is an inalienable right that comes from the Creator.  However, an attempt to usurp this right did occur in Bliss and again in Ward, contrary to the protections of this right provided by the Second Amendment against infringement as it was then interpreted.  So, this is where the Second Amendment importance comes in, for, in the early courts, any infringement of the right, whether by federal, state, or local government, was viewed as being in violation of the Second Amendment.  This interpretation is important in understanding the history of interpretations of the Second Amendment.  Of course, this early interpretation subsequently changed (which is also already noted in this article, I might add.)  Namely, over time, the view that the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, and not to state and local governments, came to be.  Also, the view that regulating concealed weapons likewise did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment likewise changed.  It is important to a reader's understanding of the history of interpretations of the Second Amendment that Bliss and Ward and Robertson all are discussed in this article.  Otherwise, a reader is left thinking that only the recently widely-supported interpretation, prior to the 9th Circuit's incorporation against the states I might add, is the only historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.  This would be false, and misleading.  No, the content that is here regarding Bliss, Ward, and Robertson is all highly pertinent to understanding the Second Amendment and should clearly remain.  And, let's focus on discussing improvements in the article, instead of falsely assigning "motives" to other editors on the talk page, OK?  Yaf (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yaf, that issues surrounding personal editors are not important here. Improving the article is important.  To that end, can we improve the sourcing in the article for the Ward/Bliss passage?  Can we remove the portions which are off topic to the federal 2A?  Can we improve the 1967 'violative of the Second Amendment' source?  I challenge that 1967 snippet as a WP:REDFLAG.  No one here appears to have actually read the original 1967 source, or if they have, they refuse to disclose details from this very obscure reference.  If anyone has read it, please answer: Who is speaking?  In what context are they speaking? Are they reliable?  What question are they answering?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well! I was mistaken, Yaf, and I apologize for misunderstanding your motive. If I paraphrase your view of Ward, it would be: You believe, back then the 2A was interpreted as protecting the right within the states, and the Ward case was attempting to usurp this right from the 2A's protection. Is that correct? (You said, back then "any infringement of the right, whether by...federal, state or local government, was viewed as being in violation of the 2A.") (You also said "it is an inalienable right that comes from the Creator.") So my first question would be: What occurred in Ward that was an attempt to usurp the right from its 2A protection? (Truwik (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Yaf, the write-up of Ward begins: "Reference to Bliss is seen in the defense argument...," when neither the defense nor the prosecution mentioned Bliss. And Cornell's: "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss...," when Ward did not cite Bliss or quote anything from that case, appears to be Cornell's speculation. Unless you can quote this "doctrine" (from Bliss) and quote (in Ward) where it was utilized, then establish that this "doctrine" somehow affects the 2A's purpose, there is no reason for Ward being in this 2A Article. (Truwik (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I still say the only reason for the Ward case being in this Article is to demonstrate how one can wrap himself in the "constitutional right to bear arms," then murder someone and get away with it. Yah, now, says this case illustrates "an attempt to usurp the right...contrary to the protections of this right provided by the Second Amendment." This theory not only defies logic (even simple understanding), it was never even mentioned in the case's write-up. I suggest Yah is grasping at straws, here, to save an otherwise lost cause. The Second Amendment is about a restriction the Founders placed upon Congress, not the unfortunate ways firearms may be used. (Truwik (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC))