Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 34

Edit request on 4 February 2013
On the second amendment to the United States Constitution page, it was recently changed from: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

to: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1].

With [1] pointing to http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Reading that article, there is alot of text that the author or someone else added to the original words, as shown by brackets [] in many places of the article. To me the article is biased, just reading through it i can see how the meaning of what's being said changes from slave patrol militias being a possibility, to trying to say it definitely was a reason. This possible reason has been listed with the other purposes under "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section for some time now, and i see no reason it should be specifically listed at the start of the article.

There is no reason "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states" should be listed at the start of the article separate from the other 'purposes' listed later on the page. Especially not in it's current form at the start of the article worded in a fashion that attempts to positively exert it as a purpose, when it is allegedly one of the purposes early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important.

I hereby request the removal of "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1]." from the first sentence, for the above reasons, and on grounds of no one particular 'purpose' should be listed separately whether alleged or positively known to be one of the 'purposes' that the "early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important".

Not to mention several sources that say it was a 'purpose' are not hard facts sources, hence why it is in the list with the rest of the 'purposes' lower on the page as "suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts"

XXxDSMer (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That set of edits had an immense list of problems...reverted. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with North. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New lede
As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history. pose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below. Proposed Long Lede The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Proposed Short Lede The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…”  added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * …firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.


 * I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception.  North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:


 * Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.


 * Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


 * Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.


 * I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your general inclination that the intro could stand to be revised along these lines, but I see some problems with your specific recommendations.
 * - "For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment"
 * -- This is hard to support. There wasn't much debate about the second amendment until the late 20th century.  When George Washington commanded a federalized militia larger than any regiment he commanded during the war, to suppress the tax protest known as the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think there was much debate about what the 2nd amendment was for.  In the Federalist, quelling insurrection (with extensive discussion of the shay's rebellion) was a key purpose envisioned for the militia.
 * - "From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds"
 * -- This seems easier to verify. The origin of gun control legislation in the US, for example, can be traced to that brief period of time known as the "wild west"  http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html
 * - "In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation"
 * -- I don't think this is exactly accurate. Heller added a new interpretation, and the court's opinion was clear that it did not mean to contravene prior interpretations.

Inijones (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Elephant in the room
I feel compelled to identify the elephant in the room here. This article seems dominated by a small group of editors with a political agenda, towards the 'individual rights' viewpoint. While since 2008, the 'individual' viewpoint has been added; it is incorrect to downplay the collective viewpoint that existed for 220 years of 2A history, from 1787-2007. Worse, in 2008 the individual viewpoint was first recognized as augmenting the collective viewpoint; and it did not replace it. Yet, the article gets this wrong; due to agenda pushing by a small energetic group of politically motivated editors. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is generally meant by the collective view is that the only right is collective, i.e. that there is no individual right. So, determining / confirming an individual right does negate the most common meaning of collective view. I 'spose there could be other meanings of collective which do not conflict with individual right.....for example that the collective right also exists, but I think that that is taken as a given rather than being just a view. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Scalia in Heller wrote: "These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia". So, it is pretty clear with the words "not limited to" that he views the 2A as pertaining to both a collective 'bear arms in a militia' meaning and also it includes a limited self-defensive meaning, such as with lawful guns inside the home. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree/ that is true but, per my previous post, is an unusual (= not the usual) meaning of collective right which was the assertion that it was only a collective right. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only guess what you are reading when you make the claim 'unusual'. My guess is that it is seen in the gun blogs? We really should put our blinders on and not be letting unreliable sources influence us here in any way. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty, remember AGF and civility. You should not accuse editors of knowingly using unreliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Give him a chance to answer my question before you jump down my throat with your accusation. I think my guess is probably accurate.  On what basis is he claiming 'unusual'? Certainly, he did not state. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty, I think that it is not even controversial:
 * "Collective right" generally refers to the belief or opinion that the "only" right is collective, so the common meaning of "collective right" is "there is no individual right".
 * The instance that you just pointed to refers to having a collective right and an individual right co-existing.
 * And so what I was saying that #1 is the common meaning, and that the #2 meaning is clearly different than #1.  Is there anything there that you even disagree with?  To tell you the truth I thought that I was just pointing out something that you would agree with, and certainly not something so controversial that you would launch in such a nasty rant over.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying 'everybody knows it' is not how to source a claim on Wikipedia. "nasty rant" you say?  So much for your admonition to be civil.  SaltyBoatr get wet 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are completely mist-sating what I said so we're not having a real discussion.  But what would you call the meaning in what you cited? Where it says that both collective and individual right exist.     Would you call that the usual or unusual meaning of "collective right"? North8000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually did address your questions see above post dated 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC). Scalia was very clear that the prior SCOTUS rulings, especially Miller, (though also Cruikshank, and Presser) which were militia based rights questions; were not invalidated by Heller.   The Heller ruling augmented the prior rulings with its new individual right component to the Second Amendment.   If your hang up is the use of the word 'collective', I could understand that.  Perhaps calling it 'militia based' and 'self defense based' rights might work for you?  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Salty, you are essentially changing the conversation with each thread to where I don't even know what your question or assertion is. What I thought it was about is this: Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You pointed out where they said that a collective right exists in addition to and individual right.
 * 2) I agreed and noted that example is using an unusual meaning of the word "collective". And gave the details of that.
 * 3) I don't even know what you are asserting or disputing.  I asked two questions which would clarify what you are asserting or disputing, and you didn't answer either of them.
 * See the top of the thread. I am attempting to point out the elephant in the room here.  The editing of this article has been dominated by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors.  Skewed treatment of the 'collective viewpoint' in the article is one example of this.  (Among many.)  In light of the Heller reference I cited above, the article incorrectly describes the collective model using 'past tense' language; as Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint.  Heller did not invalidate the militia 'collective' viewpoint seen in Miller as the past tense wording in the article implies.   SaltyBoatr get wet 19:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand where you are coming from. If you want to end thread now, that's cool. If you want to discuss to sort it out a bit more, then let me ask whether or not you agree with this statement:
 * On 2A topics, "collective right" view usually refers to a view that there there is only a collective right, and that there is not an individual right.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that statement. Regardless, talk pages on Wikipedia are not places to discuss personal opinion in any case. My beef is that the article has been skewed by a small group of energetic politically motivated editors who have inserted their personalpolitical bias, one good example being the incorrect use of 'past tense' to describe of the militia based component of the Second Amendment.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm confused by your answer but thanks for it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the way SaltyBoatr's observation about how "Heller augmented the collective viewpoint with an individual viewpoint" connects to his/her observation about "the incorrect use of 'past tense'" is rhetorical.
 * Past tense implies that one interpretation is no longer valid; Heller implies that a new interpretation was added to past interpretations, though this should not be taken to mean that one interpretation amputated the previous. In Heller, the majority opinion states: "Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47."  The decision also states: "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."  So just as there are problems with characterizing Heller as a departure from precedent, there are problems with characterizing the effect of Heller as invalidating the previous state of affairs.
 * Observations about rhetoric are not insignificant, as rhetoric is one of the classical arts of persuasion, and and analysis of rhetorical terms used in the article is an important part of maintaining as much of a NPOV as possible. That is, to the greatest extent possible, this article should be expository, not persuasive per se.  Inijones (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Obscuring the common meaning of the "collective right" theory
The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT: We may be seeing a tactic to confuse the two, to use the obvious existence of #1 to try to try to put in wording that implies that the assertions in #2 did not get authoritatively rebuked. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) that a collective right exists, it IS:
 * 2) the now-obsolete view that ONLY a collective right exists.


 * I don't think it's a malicious tactic, and wouldn't read any bad faith into any confusion, but I do think that the meaning of these terms and the relative importance of these nuances could be discussed further and clarified. I think on certain points, there are two parties here talking past each other. I think people sometimes use words that imply certain things to certain audiences, even if they don't mean to use those words as shorthand for something else.

129.89.130.117 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points. I think that the clarification of #1 and #2 is still useful....leaving out the "now obsolete" which some folks would not agree on, it is:


 * The common meaning of "collective right" in 2A debates is NOT:
 * that a collective right exists, it IS:
 * the view that ONLY a collective right exists.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The exclusive nature of the "only" and emotional connotations of "now-obsolete" are not something I personally have a strong view on. I hope other editors chime in here. In terms of any possible subtext to discussions on these points, I would think most editors here who support gun control would also support the freedom to hunt or defend a home, and would readily acknowledge that there is an individual right to bear arms.
 * In terms of how you're phrasing the "collective rights" interpretation, I think it might parse easier phrased in the positive, rather than by negation (better not to define it in terms of what it isn't). "Obsolete" sounds like it carries negative emotional connotations; maybe phrase positively as "superseding interpretation" or "additional interpretation" or "amended interpretation" or something like that.
 * What I think is a likely point of contention along these lines is where this right comes from and how it came about. I think, as noted elsewhere, conversations about this can quickly devolve into emotional attempts to re-litigate the last few years of case law, either to weaken one position, or to make another appear stronger. Inijones (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reference to various interpretations of the Second Amendment should be objective, rather than subjective. This means describing any interpretation without showing it in a positive or negative light. It doesn't mean not referring to Supreme Court decisions. It certainly means not using words like "obsolete," as such wording is clearly POV. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I specifically rewrote it to remove the "now-obsolete".  And my post has a very narrow intention......just to point out the common meaning of one term (and "only" is central to that) and just to help unscramble talk page discussions  revolving around the term, not as proposed article content.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Tenth Circuit decision
The case is Peterson v. Martinez (here's the decision) and it conflicts with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Moore v. Madigan. It should be added to the list of Court of Appeals decision in the article. I would do it myself, but am very busy at the moment. I'll be available again on Friday. SMP0328. (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I read about 1/2 of it. At first glance I wouldn't say that it conflicts with Moore vs. Madigan. Looks like the Colorado said that a categorical concealed carry right does not exist; i.e state can place conditions, including that the state can require out of state persons to have the permit from their home state. Moore Madigan I believe ruled that the state does have to allow but can place conditions. Seems like the same end.......just a quick thought from reading only half of it. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this detailed coverage of CCW weapons politics is off topic in this article, and should be spun off into a separate article with a cursory 'see also' mention here. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me Inijones (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually other than Heller and McDonald, practically every 2A-related court case is about some other specialized topic. So then the question becomes what to include here?   I think that as a starting point all US Supreme Court cases related to 2A are a logical start. Beyond that.....what would be a criteria for inclusion of a court case in this article?  North8000 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the question should be "how much detail" and how to determine which details are relevant. If there were a list with summary statements borrowed from the respective articles, that might be reasonable.  But I think SaltyBoatr is right to point out that these types of edits can quickly devolve into discussions of the politics surrounding the cases, which would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Inijones (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Salty was referring to when they said "this detailed coverage of CCW weapons politics"......I haven't seen anything like that in the article or even on the talk page. And I don't think that anybody is proposing that. If there is a content question it's whether or not to include that case in the article. I think I'd have to temporarily abstain on that question as I do not know how high up that court is. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible revisions in lead
I'm getting confused. I thought that I was agreeing with Grahamboat and now in my confused mind it looks like they are taking issue with my agreement with them. :-) And I agree completely with Grahamboat's 04:33 post.   What I was saying should NOT be included is characterizing pre-Heller court findings to be overall one way or the other on the individual right question. The best thing would be for someone to propose specific (unbundled) changes and we could use those for an unconfused discussion. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer something along these lines.
 * In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] The Heller decision resolved many prior disagreements in the lower court cases on the individual verses collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. (ref CRS) In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] Grahamboat (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) belong in section 8.6.2 Heller along with the disagreements on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller. Grahamboat (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is not a single case in the history of the United States that ever invalidated any American statute on the basis of the Second Amendment prior to Heller. NO Federal Court that EVER looked at it accepted the individual rights interpretation before 2000.  That's what CRS said, that's what the NYT said, that's what the Library of Congress said, and I ask you respectfully, North8000, if you disagree with this assessment, to find me any court in the country at any time pre-2000 that found an individual right to bear arms under the Fourth Amendment or invalidated a law under the Second Amendment.  Assuming you can't find any such case -- and I'm quite confident based on these impeccable sources that there is none -- it does not make sense to me to hide this fact from those who are coming to wikipedia to find a neutral, verifiable source of information.  I would like other editors to weigh in as well. But unfortunately the bold-faced solution is inaccurate in that it states there was a difference in lower court opinions when in fact, no court prior to Emerson in 2001, ever claimed the individual rights analysis, and no court prior to the Heller case itself invalidated a law under the Second Amendment.  We must be careful not to rewrite pre-Heller history based on the Heller opinion.  Just because five justices of the Supreme Court say one thing (and four vehemently disagree) does not and cannot change the pre-Heller past. The history of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

-->I have problems with weasel words in the boldfaced language like "mixed views" in that while any human can have any view about anything, no US court found for the individual theory prior to 2000. The "individual rights theory" is a recent theory in American jurisprudence, barely a decade old. Even Robert Bork and Ronald Reagan supported the literalist/strict constructionist interpretation of the militia clause (i.e. the collective rights theory) as recently as 1989. See, e.g., citations in http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Where%20Will%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Revolution%20Lead.pdf. Again, I don't dispute it's currently the law. I dispute those that suggest it was law anywhere in the USA prior to the 21st Century. Wikipedia should know the state of the law pre-Heller, just as the lead to Brown v. Board of Education states the law prior to that decision. The Brown lead is certainly not an endorsement of Plessy v. Ferguson. Neither would a lead on the Second Amendment that mentions its interpretation pre-Heller be an endorsement of those views.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello GreekParadise. You seem to be blending two different questions here. I may be misinterpreting, but I'm seeing it as you are using a valid argument against a non-existent proposal (of characterizing pre-Heller court findings)  as a way to justify doing the very thing that you were arguing against (characterizing pre-Heller court findings). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is not a lot of case law pertaining to the full meaning of the 2A prior to Emerson. Up until the 1960s there was very little discussion on collective rights v individual rights. Before that most people assumed a law abiding citizen could own a gun. With the enactment of Gun Control Act of 1968 the collective right theory stated to abound. BY 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee including Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Edward M. Kennedy, Robert C. Byrd, and Patrick J. Leahy supported the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.
 * The lede should be about what the 2nd A means as defined by SCOTUS, the ultimate authority, not what people thought the law ought to be. It is OK to briefly mention prior contention, but not a long litany attempting to diminish the true meaning. Prior Heller discussion belongs in 8.6.2 Heller.Grahamboat (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I disagree about where the history should fit in the article, I am absolutely in agreement with North and Grahamboat about not distracting the user with POV talking points. The fact that the judgement was 5-4 is mentioned in 8.6. Although it is a fact, giving it undue weight is POV. Likewise the fact that no gun control law was previously found unconstitutional; as a bit of trivia, it might have a place in the article, but presented in a way intended to somehow diminish Heller, it is POV. Celestra (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While I prefer my earlier suggestion, I would be willing to discuss the following suggestion in paragraph two BOLD:


 * In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3]The Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court did a comprehensive review of the meaning of the Second Amendment resolving prior vague interpretations and conflicts within the lower courts and the Supreme Court itself. The 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson (2001) and the 9th Circuit Court in Silveira v. Lockyer (2003) reached opposite opinions regarding the individual rights verses collective rights (Militia) interpretation of the Second Amendment. In the last Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, United States v. Miller (1939), both views claimed a victory as the ruling was vague failing to give either side a clear-cut victory.[4] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[5]


 * Since none of the other frequent editors to this article have expressed an opinion, perhaps we have a consensus by default to make no changes to the lede. That would be OK with me. Grahamboat (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that as-is is better then the bolded idea. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, I see only a sidebar mention of Emerson, and no coverage of Emerson or Silviera.  Should we put those in? North8000 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the bolded language is it is unsourced (and inaccurate) in that it implies that the conflicts between the lower courts existed for some time in American history. In fact, there was no conflict prior to the Emerson case. "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. This is the New York Times by the Senior Supreme Court Reporter there. I have given an impeccable source for this fact. (This is not an op-ed. It's a news report) No one has ever given a source for the contrary fact. If the consensus is not include this fully-sourced fact anywhere in the article and to imply without any evidence whatsoever in any publication there was some court conflict prior to 2000, then I must insist on re-putting up the POV tag and seeking mediation. I don't understand how an unsourced and incorrect belief can trump a fully sourced fact.GreekParadise (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant that "both sides claimed a victory in Miller," just as it would be irrelevant that segregationists and integrationists both claimed a victory in Brown. The question is how the courts decided it. And it's incontrovertible that all Federal Courts in the United States of America from the Miller case in 1939 to 2000 solely found the Second Amendment to be solely a militia right.  It is extremely relevant to the history of the Second Amendment that the was the universal interpretation of US Courts prior to the Emerson case.  Just as it's also extremely relevant that the Heller and McDonald opinions changed this long-standing interpretation to become the first cases in US history to strike down a statute as unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment under the individual theory.
 * In sum, please let me know whether there is a willingness to compromise and to put up the truth that no one here has ever cited a single source to dispute. Conversely, if anyone has any source to contradict this impeccable one, please let me know. But unless a) there is a claim that the many sources I have cited (NYT, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service) stating without qualification that the collective rights theory was the view in the US courts prior to 2000 are somehow not neutral or not respectable; or b) someone finds some source somewhere to claim that a court in the nation prior to 2000 did strike down a statute under the Second Amendment or even claimed the individual right to bear arms theory was the law, I don't see any choice but to go with the sourced material over the unsourced vague opinions of some editors. And if there is insistence that vague unsourced opinions trump uncontradicted sources, I will put up the POV tag and seek a request for comment and/or mediation. I don't know what else to do.  Sourced fact trumps unsourced opinion in wikipedia, right?
 * I'm open to any suggested compromise that allows readers of the article to know this truth. My favored suggestion is to simply include in the history the accurate 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century interpretations of the US courts. And once we complete that history section, write a fair lede to summarize it, giving due deference to the Supreme Court landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 that changed the prior interpretation of all US courts prior to 2000 from the collective to the individual theory. GreekParadise (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources: See, e.g., Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)GreekParadise (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation '''and overruling the "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling of the lower federal courts prior to 2001 that the Second Amendment "preserves a collective, rather than an individual right." (Citation Love v. Peppersack and United States v. Warin.) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession found by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4], overruling prior law dating back to 1876 holding that only the federal government was so limited.(citation Cruikshank)'''.


 * The only source that you gave is an op ed piece making that claim. Also, I'm against us editors here trying to characterize history, especially in the great-efforts-at-spin way that you are proposing. We could find hundreds of biased opinions on this on either side of the question. The second part was even more so.  Incorporation is not a "new reversal" it is continuation of a very old reversal, with Heller merely providing the moment to continue the process to another amendment.  Sincerely,   font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Greek Paradise - please remember to sign all your posts – it is becoming increasingly difficult to follow you. The bold suggestion was sourced (4), not listed on talk page, but easily supplied. The information is accurate. Your statement "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds” is false. Your point that no federal court struck down any gun control law is irrelevant in that there were scant cases reviewed. Cruikshank was not overturned by McDonald. Your proposed changes are POV suggesting that the Heller decision was some radical change in Second Amendment thinking. GP proposes using a 1995 case Love v. Peppersack to support his claims Ignoring Emerson (2001) and the 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee. You have not established any support for your proposals. Editors are willing to work with you along NPOV grounds. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Graham, the source (4) is Adam Liptak, the Chief NYT reporter for the Supreme Court and the exact source I want to use!!! How is he reliable when you want to use him and not reliable when I want to use him?  Please read what Adam Liptak said. I hesitate to repeat it yet a third time, but it's clear that you did not read it. So I will repeat it one last time and put it bold:  "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias.....  Liptak reports in fact that there was a radical change in court holdings on the Second Amendment. And the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service agree.  You cannot cite a source as reliable for one proposition and deny the same source's reliability for another proposition. I will therefore put back up the POV tag until we come to a consensus that Liptak and the NYT is or is not a reliable source. Also Cruikshank ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.  McDonald said it does.  I doubt there's a legal scholar in the country that says that the holding in Cruikshank continues to stand after McDonald.  Can you find me one? Also, I don't want to ignore Emerson. Not in the least. Like the CRS, I acknowledge that Emerson was the first federal case to hold a contrary view and that Heller adopted the Emerson view. Please, I ask with respect, that anyone joining this conversation take the time to read the sources I'm citing.GreekParadise (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise? I am willing to put the post-Miller, pre-Heller federal cases from 1942-2000 in the history section with only a brief mention in the lede such as "overruling the holding of lower federal courts which, in the 20th Century, found the Second Amendment preserved a collective right to serve in a militia, rather than an individual right to bear arms".GreekParadise (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that what we have in there now.....listing the cases and viewpoints without trying to create a characterization is the real wikipedian compromoise. This includes giving space to the now obsolete collective right viewpoint. (And I call cherry picking an op-ed "create" in Wikipedia terms.) North8000 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi GreekParadise – source (4) was not Adam Liptak, it was Andrew McClurg, p. 139 that appears as ref. 144 in the current article. We know “In March [2007], for the first time …” is not true because of Emerson. The Cruikshank ruling went out when SCOTUS heard Miller. I gave you two proposals that accomplished your stated request in a NPOV way. Your suggestions appear POV because stressing "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling” tends to distract from the Heller ruling. The facts are that none of your cited cases dealt with individual rights. Miller upheld the National Firearms Act (1939), Silveira v. Lockyer dealt with California’s assault rifle ban. Neither of these cases was about individual rights but rather if there could be restrictions on that right. Please take another look at my last proposal and see if it satisfies. A statement of facts without a characterization. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat, I meant footnote 4 in the current article. Emerson (2001) did not invalidate any law on the basis of the Second Amendment, even though it was the first to cite the individual theory. The NYT, CRS, and LOC are all right on this point. And I'm glad you realize that Cruikshank was overruled but it was overruled by McDonald. (Miller, as you point out, upheld a federal law). How about this compromise proposal (citations to be added)?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The first law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was the District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2008 in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected to service in a militia, as long as that arm is used for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession, ownership, sale, and use listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the 21st century, federal courts upheld the Second Amendment's prefatory militia clause as delimiting the scope of the right to bear arms to a collective right to serve in in a well-regulated militia.

In a second landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, overruling prior case law dating back to 1875 holding that the Second Amendment restricts the federal Government alone.

If you disagree, please be specific about whether you disagree because you doubt the reliability of my sources that cite these facts or for some other reason. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi GP – Your last suggestion is far better, less POV and may be the beginning of a consensus. I suggest rewording the first sentence, paragraph 2 to The District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement was the first gun law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). I don’t think case numbers are needed in the lede (note word duplication in the last line paragraph 2). Conceptually I have no major objections, perhaps some word tweaking. Let’s see what input other editors have. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we are coming to a consensus and I fully accept your change to my first sentence of paragraph 2. (It's more concise and better written than my own.)  With that change, are we in agreement?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi GP - Pretty much. Suggest waiting a couple of days for other input. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise, I mean this is a matter of fact (not nasty) way, but I see your statements as an assertion that failure to add some creative contrived spin constitutes POV. Until recent decades the core question was never even directly addressed by higher level courts, much less having been determined by them to be collective rights model. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North, I don't mean to be nasty either. I know you think that what you say is true, but I think you are simply mistaken. What is your source? There are at least nine cases that say you are wrong, and I have cited many of them. I have also cited the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times, and the Library of Congress. Perhaps the most scholarly work is the CRS, which makes clear that from 1942-2000, the collective view was the ONLY view EVER upheld in US Federal Court. And it's the reason no case prior to Heller struck down a law as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Part of the CRS article even criticizes the federal courts' reading of Miller from 1942-2000, so you may want to cite that part of the CRS article to argue the courts were wrong for those 60 years. But criticism notwithstanding, it was the law, not some "creative contrived spin." I can find hundreds of sources that say it was the law. I agree there was no Supreme Court case that addressed the Second Amendment between Miller (1939) and Heller (2008) but that's a different claim from no "higher level courts" found the collective version to be the law. Can you find me a single reliable source that agrees with what you  say was the law? A single "individual case" ever found in any US federal or state court before 2000? Why do you think conservative Chief Justice Burger, the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (initially) and every single President prior to George W. Bush that considered the matter all accepted without question the collective view. It's because it was the prevailing view in American Law (and the sole view of the courts) until the 21st Century. Please research my sources. I know you think you are right on this, but perhaps upon reading the CRS article and the NYT article you will change your mind. Have you read them yet?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know I can be wordy -- sorry -- so let me summarize what I wrote above:
 * 1) I request that anyone who disputes what I've written provide a reliable source with a contrary view.
 * 2) I ask that anyone who disputes what I've written read the CRS and NYT articles I've provided before contesting this issue further.GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been twelve days. No further comment. Grahamboat and Kvng have expressed support for revising the lede in the manner I did above (and Celestra did as well, at least for the idea that it be revised). And North8000, the only holdout, has not yet provided a single reliable source with a contrary view to that expressed by the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, and the Library of Congress (all of which I consider reliable). That's as much a consensus as is possible on wikipedia. Unless I receive further commentary by Monday, I will make the change as above with Grahamboat's change (adding citations of course).GreekParadise (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NO Your proposed changes and the sources do not belong even on talk pages. If you need help with policies or sources ask me on my talk page. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. J8079s (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, what you just said is a misstatement of what has occurred. Grahamboat suggested a change that could start this on a direction towards something tha might gain consensus. It was not an endorsement of the rest of your proposal, and one item of it remains many-times-over problematic.    North8000 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times used frequently in wikipedia a reliable source?
Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times (biography here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html and on wikipedia:  http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html  was considered a reliable source for his reporting on the McDonald decision (see footnote 4) but his front-page story (not an op-ed) was deemed unreliable by a couple of editors here for his reporting on pre-Heller case law.  I submit that Liptak IS a reliable source for all his reporting and that I may add information from his front-page story here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html, just as it already has been added in footnote 89 here (not by me):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms.  Does anyone still dispute his reliability?  Presuming he is good enough (and unless someone continues to argue for the contrary), I will proceed to cite this very important article in this entry.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mixing apples and oranges. Trying to put a far reaching assertion/opinion from an op ed in as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia IMHO misses the mark by several levels.  This is a different question from wp:rs which both his articles and most articles in NRA publications may meet.  But nobody is claiming "POV" for failure to use an NRA op ed for the lead.  North8000 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A front page story by a reporter is not an op ed. Unless you have some source claiming it is an op-ed, I will ask you to please refrain from this characterization.  It is no more an op-ed than the article cited by the same reporter in footnote 4.GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, but setting that aside that is only one of invalid layers in the construction needed to support what you are promoting doing. (Please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter.) The layers are:
 * Wanting to present a broad (mis)characterization in contested area as fact in the voice of wikipedia
 * Faulty, as detailed above. Interpreting a lack of a finding of the opposite (during the period where the core question didn't matter much) as being a finding.
 * Use of a cherry picked piece
 * Use of an op ed piece
 * Wanted to put it into the lead versus the body, a direct violation of what the lead should be
 * Again, please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North, the lede is currently cherry picked. It cites only one interpretation of the Second Amendment (the Heller case) in the lede and wants to end it there, rather than putting Heller in its historical context as the most recent interpretation of the federal courts, contrasting with the long-running contrary interpretation that existed for more than sixty years prior (and, for McDonald, more than 130 years prior). If you want to take the Heller and McDonald decisions completely out of the lede, and just have the first two sentences, ending with 1791, that is justifiable and NPOV but I believe quite sparse.  But once you put in the most recent interpretation, I think you have to briefly include the ones that existed for many decades, and as many as 130 years prior, as well. The judiciary's interpretation of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008, and this is, after all, an entry on the Second Amendment and not on the Heller decision. In my bolded compromise, I put far more focus on Heller and McDonald then under the interpretations in the centuries precedent. All I ask is for one small sentence and one small portion of a sentence to put the Heller and McDonald decisions in their proper context.  They were landmark decisions, but they would not have been landmark if they had merely restated current law.  Again, I note that the wikipedia entry on Brown v. Board of Education mentions Plessy v. Ferguson (the case it overturned) in the second sentence of the lede. GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first three paragraphs sound like an op-ed, but, if you read beyond that, you see that's not where it goes. The Times does not label it an op-ed. It cannot be discounted in this way.
 * The lead lacks any discussion of the interpretation of the Amendment prior to Heller. Introduction of a bit of this material in the lead would be very welcome. And would be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. -—Kvng 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kvng, do you support revising the lead as per what I have written in bold above (adding citations of course, including the NYT article and others I have cited, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, to back up every word written)? GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest we keep lede change discussions in the Possible revisions in lead section. Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at that discussion only in enough detail to understand that the solution is not there yet. It looked like User:Celestra had a good plan but it hasn't been executed. I will see if I can find some time to make a more significant contribution to that discussion a little later. -—Kvng 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Keep discussion alive.GreekParadise (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede discussion revived from archive. Please do not archive until consensus is reached on lede

 * How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt
 * I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem
This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php.

The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008.

Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well).

I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars.

But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth.

If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one.

The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions. Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements.  Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation.  Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus.  However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts."  Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008."  OK?  (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf  I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008.  Do you?  According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls?  In a poll of legal scholars?  By US courts?  It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point.  But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller.  Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment
The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed New Lead to Mention Prior Collective View as Well as Current Individual View
I have brought the prior discussion back from the archive so that it can be reviewed by anyone interested. There seems to be general consensus that a brief mention of the law on the Second Amendment in the 19th and 20th centuries should be mentioned in the lead and not only the post-Heller law since 2008.There also seems to be consensus that the New York Times front page, along with the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, are reliable sources. I therefore propose the following lead. If you disagree, please be specific about why. (I should also note that upon review of the archives, I have found dozens of editors have raised the same arguments I have more than a hundred times. It's time to put this difference of opinion to rest, even if it requires a RfC or mediation.) Thank you, Grahamboat, Celestra, Kvng, Izno and others for your suggestions. North8000, I realize you remain a major dissenter, and I respect that, but I have asked you for more than a month to provide a single source to suggest that the collective view was NOT the law prior to 2000 and you have yet to find a source contradicting the CRS, LOC, and NYT. Unless you find one, can you accept the lead?

Here's the proposed lead:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that states that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Before 2007, no law was ever struck down by a federal appeals court as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[1] In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled the Amendment restricted the federal government but did not affect state regulations on guns.[2]  Prior to the 21st century, an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus held that the Second Amendment's prefatory militia clause delimited the scope of the right to bear arms to a collective right to serve in well-regulated state militias.[3]

Two recent landmark Supreme Court cases changed the prevailing view. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement became the first gun law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. [4] In Heller, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected to service in a militia, as long as that arm is used in ways the Court defined as traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession, ownership, sale, and use listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. [5] In a second landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments in addition to the federal government.[6]

Footnotes (obviously I'll clean these up prior to putting in article)

1 - Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2013. 

2 – Library of Congress, “United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court “ United States v. Cruikshank,.

3 - Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2013.  Constitutional Accountability Center, Where Will the Second Amendment Revolution Lead?  CRS Report for Congress, “District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment  Library of Congress, “United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court “

4 - Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423.ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6. ^ "held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms,"Scaros, Constantinos E. (2010). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 484. ISBN 978-0-7637-5811-0.

5 - "The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation, 2008 Supplement (Senate document 110-17)". p. 83.

6 - Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012.

GreekParadise (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This has many problems, the same raised by numerous folks the last time it was discussed, the discussion which you have now separated this from via selective resurrection. At the core of many of them is a creative "spin" version of the pre-Heller situation. Also I think that your description in relation to other editors is misleading.  You are making it sound like those who gave you tips on how to make it slightly less bad are in support of your idea. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What I see as plainly obvious here is that North8000 seems to be advocating for his/her personal politics. The way around this tendency is to look to include a balance viewpoints seen in the reliable sources, including sources showing viewpoints that editors here might personally disagree with.  Plainly, the vast majority of the history of existence of the Second Amendment, the collective viewpoint was dominant.  Recently in 2008 for the first time, a limited form of individual viewpoint was added to the collective viewpoint by the SCOTUS.  They were clear that the collective 'militia based' viewpoint remains to exist, and is augmented by the addition of an individual right component for lawful firearms for self defense within the home.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Quit the "advocating for his/her personal politics" crap! .....baseless personal attack, and missing wp:AGF by two levels. Not only not AGF'ing, but baselessly inventing bad faith that is contrary to the record in the talk page.  There were an immense number of solid reasons why this is problematic.   Please see the discussion that this has been detached from. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion has become a mess and is difficult to follow. IMHO GreekParadise’s retrieval from the achieves was miss handled. Now we are forced to jump all over the place to see who said what and when they said it. GreekParadise’s latest proposed change is a far cry from his 2 February 2013 one. Now we’re back to two centuries of “almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus…collective right” – not close to being true. I see this as an attempt to spin the SCOTUS ruling as some radical departure from the understood meaning of the 2nd Am. Very POV. Grahamboat (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can agree to some mention of prior Heller views on collective rights but not to present it in such a way that it was the only or “main” view. There is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view. None of the prior legal cases mentioned; attempted a comprehensive review of the meaning.Grahamboat (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the hard to follow. The bad archival happened when in the midst of our discussion, an editor decided to make it a 14 day archive. This caused a bot to archive the page at 14 days which made the entire debate difficult to reclaim. It is a mess. And if anyone knows how to reclaim the old material in a less convoluted way, by all means, do so. I also have asked the editor who did the 14-day retrieval and caused the problem on his/her talk page to bring back the 30 day archive. If anyone else knows how to do so, please do. (I do not.) But I strongly agree the quick archive harms our discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat, I started to do it the way we talked about. And then I went to the sources to document it. But the source (NYT) said "There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias." Have you read it? Other sources said there is not a single President prior to 2000 who supported an individual rights theory. In fact, if you've read these sources, you'd know that Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, and conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger all supported the collective view (as did almost everyone prior to about 20 years ago). So I can't write something contrary to all known sources. Grahamboat, you say "there is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view." If there's "plenty of evidence," you should be able to find dozens of reliable sources that say that. I would ask you to provide me with three. Or heck, for a start, even one. If it's true, by all means, let me see the sources! I'd love to evaluate it. In fact, I strongly invite you to do the research. And if you can find a good source for your claim, let's add it to the article! But if you can't find a single reliable source that disputes what I say, perhaps you will then see that my sources are true and your conjecture -- well-meaning though it is and polite as you've always been -- happens to be factually false. No matter how much you believe 2+2=5 and no matter how nice you are about it, it cannot be posted on wikipedia if reliable sources say it is false and no reliable source says it is true. So please provide me a reliable source for your claim and I'll evaluate it. If you cannot do so, please respectfully withdraw your claim. Incidentally, I cannot find a single President prior to 2000 with this view. Can you name one? I know you believe what you said to be true, Grahamboat, but do you have any EVIDENCE of it being true? You say there's plenty. Please post the links and let's evaluate them.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000, it is hard to assume good faith when you are not making any objections based on reliable sources. It is exceedingly unhelpful to claim the lead has "many" problems and is "spin." You have to name the problem. Name just one problem, in fact. Name one fact that is unproven. In fact, until you cite a source for your claims, you really should cease making any argument. An argument without a source is as meaningless as a guy insisting the earth is flat. It's just a waste of time. I'm looking for a consensus -- which is a give and take based on reliable sources. Honestly I don't want your personal opinion and it is irrelevant to wikipedia. With respect, you need to put up a source or withdraw your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone can back up their assertions with a reliable source or a wikipedia argument, I see no objections to making the change. There's no need to discuss this for another month or two. Unless someone provides a reliable source to dispute what I've written, a justified wikipedia argument, or an honest attempt at compromise based on factual sources rather than conjecture, I will make the change and if you dispute it, we will put up a POV tag and go to formal dispute resolution. But rest assured, the wikipedia editors that decide mediation don't care about your personal beliefs as to historical facts either. They will also want sources. So you might as well give me your sources now or an attempt at compromise. Let's work together. No one owns this article. We've gone round in circles for more than a month now. If I don't get a source or a justified-wikipedia objection within three more days, I will make the change. And if you disagree, North8000, let's go to dispute resolution.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating the now-detached discussion, GreekParadise that is completely backwards. You are basically saying that that unless there is high grade sourcing that has addressed and refuted the particular creative spin that you are trying to put in that it should go in. This is exactly in direct violation of Wikipedia policies (starting with Wp:ver and wp:nor) and contrary to how wikipedia works.    And that's just speaking for insertion into the article.  Your proposed insertion onto the lead doubles that up with a whole second set of problems.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ver says be verified. Mine is. Yours isn't. VP:nor says no original research. I have not used original research. You have because you cannot source your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the best you can do, North8000, and you are, in effect, conceding you cannot find a single reliable source or valid wikipedia reason behind your objection, I will go ahead and make the change.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all.  You are missing or evading the core point of both of those policies.  Please see my previous post. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise forgive me for saying - but your replies “2+2=5” sound smart assed. I have no intention of searching for sources that I would never use in the article; but just to prove you wrong - http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/Congress.2a.pdf (see page 48). You are missing the point – just because you find a source for a POV slant doesn’t mean it should go into the lede. What you are attempting to do would diminish the importance of the SCOTUS opinion by introducing gun-control POV rhetoric. So you see, your suggestions are not only wrong they are POV and minuscule. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don’t reply to snide comments. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a version with more neutral wording based on the references called out above and the existing lead. If there are other references that have something to say about interpretation prior to Heller, list them and I'd be happy to incorporate:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that states that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on several occasions that the amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms considering the amendment to be, “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”[3]

In the 21st century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.[1][2] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

-—Kvng 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno about in the lead, but if the "missing point"  (that previous statement was due to the status of incorporation in general, not just the 2A) I think it might be good material for the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, no objection to my lead proposal? -—Kvng 21:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK with me. Grahamboat (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure yet. Does anybody know if this non-incorporation to restrict the states was in general for the amendments vs. specifically for the 2A?    The wording here makes it sound as if it was specifically towards the 2A.  North8000 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was specific to the 2nd. I pulled the quote from the LoC ref (link above) which I believe is talking about U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)...
 * "The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."
 * -—Kvng 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So there are 2 main proposed changes in there. Addition of the middle paragraph and modification of the last paragraph. I think we should deal with them separately.

Regarding the new paragraph, I think that it is good informative material that should be added to the article. But if non-incorporation was the norm for amendments in general back then back then we should provide that context info, otherwise we are being misleading. IMHO putting previous non-incorporation in the lead is not a good choice, but if others want it I'm game to try it.

Regarding the last paragraph, I do not see a reason for the proposed changes. Either way they should be specifically discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the middle paragraph to the lead. We can discuss adding additional context info to it but I've gone ahead and made the addition now because I think saying something that we now agree is factual about those 217 years is clearly an improvement over saying nothing. The changes I'm proposing in the last paragraph is adding "21st century" for continuity from the new middle paragraph and trimming it down a bit to better match the word count of the new middle paragraph. As per WP:RECENTISM, the first 217 years of history deserves at least as much attention as the past 5 years. -—Kvng 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to quote the amendment as you are doing in the first sentence. Please look at other amendment articles for examples. You are clearly doing this to put undue weight on "militia" and support your POV. If you'd like to add something about protecting militias as well, great, but the first sentence should say what the amendment functionally does, not simply quote it.Scott Illini (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I copied that first paragraph from GreekParadise's contribution above. It looked reasonable to me. I don't see how quoting the exact words in the amendment creates a POV issue. Which article specifically should I look to as an example? -—Kvng 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good job Kvng – hopefully this keeps everybody happy. It is my understanding that incorporation happened with different amendments at various times according to need – technically 2010 for 2nd A. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The middle paragraph definitely takes care of the fact that the Second Amendment was not incorporated from 1875 to 2010, unlike other amendments that were incorporated at many different times (most much earlier). This deals with incorporation nicely. Thank you for that, Kvng. I agree with North to leave the last paragraph alone. Heller did not say that every individual has the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.  It left in a large series of restrictions defined by the Court as reasonable that are listed in that paragraph.  My only remaining concern is there is still the unresolved issue of the Miller case of 1939 and the collective view that was the exclusive view of the Courts for the rest of the 20th Century. I'm satisified to resolve that in one sentence. The sentence I quoted is almost directly taken from the New York Times article, but I'm happy to see what other editors pull from other sources.GreekParadise (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that recent change to the lede by Kvng is an improvement, good work! SaltyBoatr get wet 15:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise saying that no [gun] law was struck down has no meaning as there were very few cases heard and those that were did not involve individual right questions but rather restrictions to a right i.e. NFA or California’s assault weapon ban. Likewise saying that there was a complete scholarly and judicial consensus on a collective right interpretation is not correct as I’ve shown above – if fact 55 senators and 250 House members supported Heller before the case was heard. That is not to say there was not a collective vs individual controversy prior to Heller. It is a question of how to present it in a NPOV way. I suggest adding to the 2nd paragraph “the Heller case resolved a long standing conflict on whether the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as an individual right or a collective right - reserved for the military only”. This would introduce the historical aspects in a NPOV way. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to quibble with "resolved a long standing conflict on whether the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as an individual right or a collective right". There is very little evidence this is a long standing conflict.  The whole 'individual rights' question first began to arise circa 1985 per Garry Wills.  (For 190 years, essentially no one was arguing that the 2A protected an 'individual right'.)  The first scholarly attention to the concept of an individual right was first published in the Tennessee Law Review spring 1995 edition.  This Wiki article should not engage in revisionist history by pretending that the Individual rights concepts goes back further than the scholarly published evidence shows (which is 1995).   SaltyBoatr get wet 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I viewed what's in as a compromise. I think that making a larger deal out of the incorporation timing and having it in the lead is confusing and undue but went with it.     Not that it can't evolve later, but not as a new starting point for a current discussion to possibly go farther undue. If it starts turning into that I would like to revert while we're discussing.  Circling back, I think that any wording that tries to leave an impression that it was decided "collective" prior to Heller is misleading wp:OR at best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For balance Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us. I think the bold section needs to be I the leed. "First gun laws struck down" has a place at District of Columbia v. Heller and maybe here but not in the leed. J8079s (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don’t know where the “1995” came from, but in 1982 a bipartisan subcommittee on the constitution of the committee on the judiciary United States Senate issued a report THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS whereby the individual right was championed as well as the collective right. So the issues were argued well before 1995. Cheers. `Grahamboat (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The 1995 came from date of the Tennessee Law Review, Spring edition, which is famous for being the first scholarly examination of the individual rights model. The 1982 date is also famous, though it was a political statement, not exactly scholarly; regardless, I grant that the 1982 hearing is important.  |Garry Wills confirms the 1980s as being origin of the 'standard model' (aka individual rights) hypothesis.   The whole 'individual rights' political movement roots probably can be traced to the Harlan Carter in 1972 leading up to the 'Cincinnati Revolt' of 1977.  My point is that the 'individual rights' history of the Second Amendment (first political, followed with scholarly) isn't really that old.  Definitely a latter half of the 20th Century phenomena.  The first two centuries of the 2A had very little to do with the individual rights model.   So, I argue that this 2A article should try to take a 'big picture' viewpoint and fairly depict the 2A as it evolved over time.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SaltyBoatr for sourcing your statement. Unless and until others opposing the view of these reliable sources also source their claims, the way SaltyBoatr and I have, they have NO validity. Any unsourced claims are wp:OR and we are required by wikipedia to ignore them. For example, Grahamboat, you made a claim that "There is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view."  Do you have any evidence that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, or Clinton ever supported this view?  You have not presented any.  You can't say, "It's as I've shown above" when all you've shown above is your own say so.  I can't accept it as a valid statement (without proof) when you refuse to present any source whatsoever.  This is not "being disrespectful." It is wikipedia policy. I'm quite confident that no reliable source for your statement exists, but if you believe you have a reliable source for your statement, you should show it to us so we can evaluate it or respectfully withdraw your statement as inaccurate. Similarly, no one in this entire long discussion on this talk page has ever backed up any claims that individual rights was supported by any court or any President prior to 2000.  Rather than be a long-standing conflict, my sources show that the collective view was accepted by all US courts and the vast majority of scholars until the Emerson case in the 21st century.  Since we have the sources -- and those who disagree with us do not, and since no sources = no valid argument, that means that there is NO disagreement whatsoever that the collective view predominated prior to Emerson and Heller.  Which, after all, is what the New York Times and the Congressional Research service both say. (unsigned:   13:59, 26 February 2013 GreekParadise )
 * You are arguing to put in something with a particular "spin" which attempts to paint lack of any review of collective vs. individual back when it was moot as a finding towards 'collective". Grahamboat, on the talk page, said that the opposite is the case. Asking for proof of the opposite statement is off the main topic. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 has had ample time to source his complaint and has failed to do so. (And frankly, it appears that he is arguing his personal political opinion.)  It is well sourced that the dominant view prior to Heller was a militia based viewpoint, sometimes called the 'collective' viewpoint.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds like a blog but is whole discussion is turning into one. Speaking of revisionism, there is a dwindling group gun-control fanatics trying to spin history to imply that you had to belong to the military in order to have an individual right to own fire arms. The truth is America has a 400 year, mostly unchallenged, record of individual firearm ownership. It was not until 1939 that some sensible restrictions came about starting with limitations on machine gun ownership (NFA) progressing to the more questionable “so-called” assault rifle bans. Some liberal enclaves went as far as banning handguns altogether. The tactics of the Heller deniers are to take the scant gun law cases and spin their outcomes to imply that the Heller decision was outside mainstream thinking. Starting in the early 1980’s there was a shift back towards an individual right meaning of the 2nd AM. Today it is almost universal – only seven states are not considered “shall issue” on CCW permits. Returning to the issue at hand, any attempt to politically spin the individual right meaning of the 2nd AM to be outside mainstream thinking is POV. The blogging has taken us off point. The question is with all the recent changes to the lead can we all accept the version 13:57, 27 February 2013‎ Inijones? I’m OK with it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change the lede
If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.
 * On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

'''I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.'''GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted page to last stable version identified by North8000 (March 8) and re-inserted some text that has seemed OK. Along with the mention of "linguistic debate" Yaf had added a variant of this text:


 * Under the "individual rights" model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. This interpretation holds that the opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.


 * I think this is a point worth clarifying, but before this text goes back in, I would like to see text that equally addresses both "individual rights" and "collective rights" Inijones (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV
The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean?  Imprecise language should be removed.  As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many.  Plus there is no citation for generally accepted.  Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it?  You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course.  So if there's no source, it has to go.  You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced?  Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise.  You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article.  My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think using text like "generally accepted" or "standard model" is a problem where there is ongoing debate (here, in the culture at large, in policy circles, and in the legal realm).


 * For example, the Library of Congress Law Library states:


 * "Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. "


 * http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Inijones (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Lead re Miller
Prior to my most recent change, the lead was inaccurate. It formerly stated that the McDonald (2010) case was the first Supreme Court case since the 1939 case of Miller (whose significance is not described) to rule on the Second Amendment. That's not true. Heller (2008) was the first case since Miller. I have revised the lead to explain the significance of Miller -- the only Supreme Court case in the entire 20th Century on the Second Amendment -- which is that it ushered in the collective view throughout all US Federal Courts for the remainder of the 20th Century. I have used direct quotations to do this, both from Miller and the Congressional Research Service. I have taken the incorporation sentence and placed it in its proper place, in the third paragraph following the McDonald case where it happened, rather than out of context in the second paragraph (19th and 20th Centuries) where it does not belong.GreekParadise (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise and others contend that since no laws were overturned somehow equates to proof that a military only right was the mainstream view for 2 centuries. IMHO the laws themselves confirm an individual right sentiment. Here is a brief (by no means complete) summery of the main federal laws: 1. NFA (1934) machineguns must be registered and $200 stamp purchased. 2. GCA (1968) must be over 18 with no criminal, drug, dishonorable discharge, or mental health issues. 3. FOPA (1986) no machinegun purchases on guns not registered by 1986. 4. Brady Bill (1993) handguns purchases must pass a background check for GCA issues. 5. Assault Weapon Ban (1994) expiring (2004) banned certain “assault looking” semi-automatic rifles. As long as a person was compliant with the above laws, that person was deemed to have an individual right to keep and bear a firearm without having any military connection.


 * One needs to look no further than the Heller majority opinion to repudiate the claims of the sources used on this talk page:


 * Claim 1. Prior to the 21st century, an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus held… to a collective right to serve in well-regulated state militias.


 * Claim 2. There is very little evidence this is a long standing conflict.


 * Excerpts from the opinion: Examining the early scholars, Tucker, Rawes, and Story the court found that “all three understood it [2A] to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service”. "We have found only one early 19th-century commentator who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia—and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary... It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.” ”Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” “The most famous was the judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who wrote ‘Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms… It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent’". “All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have found concurred with Cooley”. “The limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.” “Presser v. Illinois, does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment”. “Miller [case] stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons… We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens.”


 * From the above we can see that not only was there a long standing conflict, but for the most part the individual right was the prevailing view for most of this country’s history.


 * There was no consensus or justification for the Miller expansion in lede. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Grahamboat, with a couple of notes. GreekParadise   is trying put creative spin text that the pre-Heller view was "collective only".   One of Grahamboat's points was that the opposite is more likely.  IMHO Grahamboat is absolutely correct on that point, but after seeing the course of previous discussions, I wanted to point out that such an argument is not required to keep/leave out the "creative spin" version, and doubly so from the lead. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Grahamboat's only authority is Heller itself. It's kind of like saying that prior to Brown v. Board of Education, the 14th Amendment never allowed segregated schools and then citing Brown as a source.  Grahamboat, you have to find pre-Heller authority to determine what the law was pre-Heller.  The CRS article, printed on the eve of Heller, is precisely that perfect source.  Now the lead is gobbledygook, mixing 19th and 20th Century authority with 21st Century authority.  I will strive to fix it back.  But if we cannot resolve this, we should go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On your first point, no authority is needed to keep out the creative characterization that you have been seeking to put in; the reverse is true...such is needed to even put it into the article much less the lead. The recent big change (by Inijones) in the lead took if farther in the direction that you prefer (so now it's a compromise on top of a compromise, both towards the direction that you prefer....I think it is a bit of an overreach but did not revert), so I am surprised that you did not like the change. If it is contested we should revert it, not add something else. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Either we state Miller and Heller (giving both sides of the controversy both pre-2008 and post-2008), just as we have already agreed on stating the law pre-McDonald and post-McDonald -- or we remove all Supreme Court cases from the lead and leave the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the body of the article. This prevents WP:RECENTISM and WP:POV. I prefer to state both sides -- both the interpretation of the past that has existed for generations and the recent interpretation of the last few years. But I'd rather have no judicial interpretation in the lead than a one-sided article that suggests that there was never any judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment prior to 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As written now, the article has a nice balance. The first paragraph states the Amendment. The next paragraph gives the 19th and 20th Century judicial interpretation. The third paragraph describes how scholars in the latter 20th Century began to challenge that judicial interpretation. And the fourth paragraph gives the modern Heller/McDonald view, favoring the individual over the collective model. It shows both sides with a clear, chronological road from the past interpretation to the present interpretation. It includes all of the edits editors have put in from both sides of the POV and is indisputably accurate. I really hope you will let this latest edit be.GreekParadise (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Stating both opinions is fine, maybe even in the lead. Trying to spin/synthesize what the courts said is not. The massive burst of changes by two folks made a mess out of the lead. I reverted, please get consensus in talk first. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with North8000. GreekParadise – Your so called “balance” was nothing more than spinning and distorting cases and opinions in an attempt to characterize 2A as having a collective view for 2 centuries. Trolling the history pages to find other editors to agree with you is tantamount to Canvassing and is frowned upon on Wikipedia.Grahamboat (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My balance is backed up by reliable sources quoted verbatim. It is not spin or distortion to quote verbatim reliable sources like the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress. It is spin to remove all history prior to 2008 without any reliable source to back up your actions. Please don't just throw away hard work. If there's a particular sentence you don't like, please say why it should be excluded. Or we can do the opposite and start with the first paragraph and you can justify any addition you want to make. It however can never be wikipedia consensus to give just one side of a controversy that violates WP:IRS, WP:NOR, WP:Recentism, and WP:NPOV I will revert.GreekParadise (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You had no consensus to make your changes.Grahamboat (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it extremely important to fairly respect the spectrum of Supreme Court evolution of viewpoint in this article. Miller, and its militia viewpoint was the dominant viewpoint for many decades, until just recently when Heller added an individual component to the Miller militia component.  Heller did not void or negate Miller, it merely added to Miller.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise, there is an immense amount of problems with what you are trying to war into the lead. Here are the first few:


 * Warring in controversial changes which not only have no consensus, but fall miles short of that.
 * The quote on Miller is deceptive, taken out of context.  It was saying that the 2A does not grant a categorical right that rules out any restrictions  (such as those on the particular weapon which was the subject of the ruling.)
 * This is not about views on the 2A, it is about trying to force in synthesized claims about what the legal standing was. So implying that this is about merely trying to include the collective right view is not germane and misleading.  I'm sure folks would be open to discussion on that; I know I would.
 * There is not rule that says that every view has to be prominently in the lead.  There  were those that said that the amendment that gave women the right to vote is invalid.   Do you see that in the lead there?
 * Taking both the amendment itself and what it says out of the first paragraph.
 * You are warring in a whole pile of stuff, not just any item of asserted merit. Items can be individually discussed for potential inclusion.

Again, that's just for a start. The lead needs to go back to its last stable form before it got scrambled up, and then that pile of changes need to get discussed in order to go in. Not just pile them all in and then discuss. It's BRD, not BD. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll work on and propose something to include the collective right view. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How's this? (I copied it from the body of the article):
 * In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
 * North8000 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems balanced to me. SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * seems undue to me, elevating a particular historical view above all other views. It is better to let the later subsections flesh out all the views. Yaf (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not neutral. In the 20th Century, particularly post-Miller, the courts uniformly supported the collective view.  That a few scholars disagreed with it in the last two decades of the 20th Century, just as many scholars disagree with the 5-4 Heller decision in the 21st Century is not that relevant. People disagree with many things. I don't mind stating that there is disagreement then and now, but it's not that important to me whether it's included or not. I think what must be made clear is that in the courts, the collective view was the ONLY view until the 21st Century (Emerson being the first case, later affirmed by Heller). That's the part that all reliable sources say and not a single source contradicts.GreekParadise (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on what Yaf says, I propose -- if the decision is to exclude all history of the Second Amendment from 1791 to 2008 that we remove the history from 2008 to 2013 as well. Just get rid of the second paragraph entirely, so as not to violate WP:Recentism. I emphatically think we cannot include Heller without 60+ years of Miller, just as we can't include McDonald without 130+ years of Cruikshank before. Either all history or no history. You can't throw away 217 years of history to keep the most recent five. Look at the other Nine Amendments to the Bill of Rights in wikipedia. Eight of them do not mention a single case in the lead, and the one that does (the First Amendment) notes the law prior to and after the 1925 decision cited. For consistency's sake, let's just blank out the second paragraph and resolve this clear anomaly in the lead. GreekParadise (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heller was the only Supreme Court case that addressed and ruled on the main question directly. McDonald incorporated it which is a huge moment for any amendment. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with covering in the lede what is now a very dated historical perspective, treating it like it was "always" the interpretation, when it wasn't, as SCOTUS had not ruled until Heller what the Second Amendment means. It is undue to include a dated viewpoint that predates the court's ruling.  It shouldn't be given such prominence in the lede. Have removed it.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Miguel, the version I put up this morning was based on the last stable version identified by North8000 at 18:15, 11 March 2013‎.   I took out some aggressive edits by GreekParadise.  Your reversion takes the article back to a state prior to the last stable version (march 8).   I have re-instated the last stable version. Please don't over-rule consensus.Inijones (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that the one I went back to wasn't quite back to the last stable version but maybe it's close enough.  But I think that it makes a statement about Miller that is misleading at best. Heller was the first SCOTUS case to directly address the "individual vs. collective-only right" question.  Miller address whether or not it allws placign restrictions on certain types of firearms.  North8000 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not married to the present text, though the present statement on Miller (at the end of the second paragraph) is taken from the current wiki on Heller, with reference, verbatim I believe. I also don't see how it bears directly on the individual right / collective right issue.  I'm not really a partisan on the matter of gun ownership.
 * After I reverted to "last stable" (march 8), I subsequently at edit 13:31, 12 March 2013‎ reinstated edit  22:28, 11 March 2013‎ SMP0328 that I had initially proposed after yet another editor removed GreekParadise's direct quote of source text; and lastly I re-instated an earlier contribution  that had been modified by another editor.  I couldn't find the modification in the article history, but removed the difference between my edit and the later edit on the talk page at Inijones (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) and suggested putting it back into the intro of the article with an additional sentence to balance out a somewhat neutral way to introduce the collective right / individual right issue just as an issue.  Maybe GreekParadise wants to add a sentence to balance out
 * "Under the "individual rights" model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. This interpretation holds that the opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[6]"
 * so that both can be re-introduced

Inijones (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Statements in lead regarding pre-Heller situation and individual vs. collective-only
I think that we need to recognize that two questions have been getting conflated:
 * 1) Some potential mention of the individual vs. collective-right debate in the lead
 * 2) Creative insertions that try to assert or imply that the courts were ruling "collective-only" prior to Heller.

There might be some common ground for #1. #2 has such an immense array of problems (starting with policy conflicts) that it's wp:snow for it to go in, doubly so for the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000, the law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.


 * Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”

...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this long statement on every talk page of every editor that has edited this article on this issue in the last month or two, because I think it's important that no editor claim something untrue without having reviewed the sources. If you have a reliable source to the contrary, please post it. But I'm getting really tired of people claiming a falsity (that the law was not collective only pre-2000) without posting any source whatsoever for their claim. The next time someone does, I will do a Request for Comment where I give my sources and those who disagree can present their lack of sources against mine. And here's one more source for the record:

http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Where%20Will%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Revolution%20Lead.pdf

GreekParadise (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem citing lower court case law, as previously pointed out, is the cases were not about individual rights but rather about laws that restricted the right.


 * No one argued about mentioning collective right controversy in the lede but your insistence that it was that way for over two centuries was proven wrong. Your twisted insertion of Miller 17:32, 11 March 2013‎ shows your POV motivation.


 * You have lost respect and credibility when you turn this discussion into a circus with your $100 bet crap. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Having read my sources, do you continue to dispute them? Or do you concede that the collective view was the sole view between Miller and Emerson? (I offered the $100 bet because I've been trying for three months to get one of you to actually back up your assertions with sources. The $100 is proof that you cannot.) I'm ready to accept something very close to your proposal, Grahamboat, but you have to concede that judicial opinions between Miller and Emerson denied an individual right and promoted only a right to serve in a militia. If you cannot concede this clear and obvious and undisputed point, we won't get anywhere. If you continue to be stubborn and reject these obviously reliable sources while refusing to provide any contrary source of your own, I ask that you agree to submit the question to mediation.20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's use the other Amendment articles as a guide for the lead
We seem to be continually be dealing with efforts to put unusual and creative (to put it nicely) content into the lead. Let's use the other amendment articles as a guide. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Each notes the effect / action of the amendment. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I included the 19th because it is an example of one which was contested. (Referring to the contesting of the amendment itself, not to not previous contesting of suffrage which the court case overrode)
 * The first amendment (with the freedom of religion clause as an example) is an example of one where the meaning has been contested.


 * In line with the above guide how about:


 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment declares that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state and prohibits congress making any law that would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.


 * Followed by (if needed):
 * A paraphrased version of:


 * In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).


 * Followed by (if needed):


 * In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. Grahamboat (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to quote the amendment in the Introduction. That's already done in the Text section, just like in any other amendment article. The rest of Grahamboat's proposal is generally acceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also no need for "In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)." This is all historical content that adds only confusion to the lede for casual readers.  Besides, it is already covered in the subsequent paragraphs. However, we do need to include: "In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.", as this is the current status of the Second Amendment.  It is fundamentally confusing to casual readers to go into the historical debate on the prefatory clause in the lede, being the Supreme Court has ruled.  Prior to the landmark rulings, though, there would have been a case to include the discussion about the prefatory clause in the lede.  But, this prefatory discussion is only historical trivia, now. It doesn't belong in the lede due to the confusion it would engender. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the case that "this prefatory discussion is only historical trivia, now" since Heller didn't overturn Miller. If Heller belongs in the lead, so does Miller for the exact reason that Miller is still on the books, just like Heller.  If Miller comes out, so should Heller.Inijones (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A statement of what the amendment does would be good and consistent wit the others. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be best stated as worded at present, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree.  That is how the other amendments are covered. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the way this is going. It's much more encyclopedic. I would sugest rewording to leave out the sentence In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment as redundant and clumsy. Also per WP:MOS citations do not belong in the lede. J8079s (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad observation.Inijones (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t exactly quote the 2A but rather reworded it along the same way 1A is presented. Saying 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms is not entirely correct either – offers some protection? – gives limited protection? - might be more accurate. That being said, I am OK with version 14:16, 13 March 2013‎. I would also be OK using the first paragraph by itself as the lede. Grahamboat (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no right is categorical and unconditional, I think that it is taken as the norm that you can say that an amendment protects a right without implying such. For example, just because freedom of speech is not unlimited (can't shout "fire" in a movie theater) doesn't mean you can't say that the 1A protects freedom of speech. North8000 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the other Amendments as a guide, it is worth pointing out that NO Amendment mentions case law in the lead, except the First Amendment which mentions the state of the law prior to and after incorporation. Let's just say, if we cannot find consensus, "concerns the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and delete all other paragraphs. Or (and I prefer this option) briefly give the state of the law before Heller (no law declared unconstitutional from 1791 to 2001 because Amendment restricted to militia and federal government) and post-Heller (individual rights for some people with some arms). This means I could accept Grahamboat's proposal with some tweaks. And we'll remove the redundant and inaccurate information in the lead now. There's no need to repeat incorporation twice and the holding in Heller twice and not mention the holding in Miller and its progeny once. That's just silly. It's clear POV and bad writing.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I also like "concerns" and SMP0328 as re-inserted it multiple times. Concerns is more NPOV for the reasons I outlined in my last edit, mainly:
 * "concerns" is more NPOV than "protects." It might be judicial precedent that protects that right, or it could be founder intent; "concerns" is neutral on this point. "concerns" could refer to militia service, but can also include protection of a right
 * Miguel doesn't seem to agree, but he isn't really giving reasons. His edit of  15:32, 12 March 2013 reverted the article to a state prior to "last stable" (march 8) identified by North8000.  After I re-instated "last stable" after GreekParadise's aggressive edits, and I re-inserted itemized edits to bring the article to a state prior to GreekParadise's edits, Miguel reverted by edits at  17:32, 12 March 2013‎ giving no reason other than "see talk."  His accompanying talk page comment at 15:36, 12 March 2013 asserts that what is in the lead is "a very dated historical perspective" which is POV, and instructs North8000 to "Have removed it" which implies his talk page comment was an instruction to another editors rather than an attempt at discourse.  If he persists in this way I will issue an RFC, his behavior is not constructive.
 * I may also issue a RFC on the wording of the lead if we can't agree.
 * I would rather have a balanced discussion in the intro -- even one that acknowledges controversy, so long as it doesn't take a side -- but I agree that the fallback position should be to remove all case law from the intro.
 * If we can't agree on the intro and all case law is removed, I think the outline for the top of the article should look like this:
 * 1. Basic facts about ratification of second amendment as a historical event.
 * 2. Section on ratified text, with ratified text only
 * 3. Separate section on variants of ratified text, with notes as applicable
 * 4. Separate section on linguistic notes, commenting on grammar, legal terminology, as appropriate
 * 5. Historical matters
 * 6. Case law

Inijones (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The other amendments describe the effect, including under SCOTUS decisions. For example, the 19th granted women the right to vote, was challenged, the result being that it stands. For the 2A this (individual right in particular) is per Heller and the incorporation in McDonald. I have some concerns that if we simply say the current effect (protects an individual right) rather than saying what SCOTUS said, then someone would challenge the "protects an individual right" statement. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I have a good solution likely to achieve consensus at least for this first sentence: the Second Amendment gives a "qualified protection" for the right to keep and bear arms. It's undisputed that there is some right there to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, just as it's undisputed that the right has never been  unlimited. How it's limited has differed throughout history and among scholars. Pre-Heller, the courts restricted it to  militia alone. Post-Heller, it's an individual right. But even today's SCOTUS allows reasonable restrictions on type of weaponry (no machine guns) and people who can have them (no insane/no violent felons/no terrorists/age limits).  It has always been a "qualified protection" throughout history. So I think that's a fair way to describe it. Stronger than "concerns" (it protects!) but weaker than protects alone (because protection is qualified).GreekParadise (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

EVERY right granted by any amendment is subject to certain limitations....that is a given for all of them, and the word "qualified" is not used. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the Second Amendment per current Supreme Court precedence provide extremely limited protection of the individual right component, specifically for a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". Nothing outside the home, and nothing not for 'immediate self-defense' is presently covered. (Of course, the long standing collective militia based uses remain broadly covered.)   I think it is loudly obvious that a group of politically motivated editors here for many years in a row now have been trying to insert their personal political bias as part of a pro-gun advocacy.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think GreekParadise's more convoluted ("qualified right") edit was probably most accurate (save for exact wording of the amendment, which would be redundannt), but I still think "concerns" is more elegant, covers the widest variety of statement about the amendment without taking sides on whether it is case law or the text's original intent that produces an individual right.
 * There seems to be some pushback from Miguel  14:16, 13 March 2013‎  that using "concerns" constitutes a "POV push that Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear arms" which isn't the case.  There is nothing about the wording of "concerns" that negates what Miguel would like to read into the sentence.  If the Amendment protects a right, it also concerns the right.  The one wording doesn't rule out the other.  However, if the article says that the second amendment protects a right, that strongly implies original intent, rather than case law.  There is some debate on whether the individual right comes from founder intent or case law. Given that a neutral wording is available, it should be used. Inijones (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, let's work out any changes HERE. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Concerns" does not describe at the core what the Second Amendment does. We could just as easily say the Second Amendment "concerns" guns, or "concerns" militia.  It does, but only peripherally.  The right to keep and bear arms predates the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This is established, per Supreme Court rulings, for Supreme Court rulings have clearly stated that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms.  Of course it doesn't, as the right precedes the Second Amendment! The Second Amendment does, however, "protect" this pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and this is also established through Supreme Court rulings.  It is not about "what I would like to read in the sentence".  Rather, it is about being true to established Supreme Court rulings rather than attempting to mislead readers of this article.  The correctness of the wording is very important to prevent misleading readers.  If it doesn't matter, then why state, "The one wording doesn't rule out the other."  If this is truly the case, then the use of the word "protects" would be of no concern.  No, it is only when attempting to push a POV into the lede that it seemingly does matter.  Wikipedia is no place for pushing a POV that is contrary to fact.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Miguel, are you saying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of insane violent felons/terrorists to bear arms? If not, would you agree the protection is qualified? You're not claiming the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amemdment gives an unqualified protection to keep and bear arms, are you?GreekParadise (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This country was founded by insane violent felons/terrorists bearing arms, at least if you believe several British commanders, and their written reports that were written contemporaneously to Parliament. Also, bullying editors on Wikipedia does not work well for building consensus. Neither does making ludicrous $100 bets with everyone, as you have been doing on numerous talk pages.  It reeks of spamming, if nothing else. What you are doing is not conducive to improving this article.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are saying the Second Amendment does guarantee the right of insane violent felons/terrorists to bear arms? Where's your source for this? If you'd answer my question and stop attacking me personally, we might actually get somewhere. I made those bets to prove that no one could dispute my sources.  Can you? GreekParadise (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to Greek
So, I think you may be close to violating some spamming/hounding rules, but lets set that aside for a minute. Ignoring all the pundit commentary, legal analysis, The milita statutes, etc and restricting just to rulings in court cases, you are still incorrect. Certainly things were not firmly settled until Heller/McDonald, but the "Individual right" line of thought was well contemplated by the courts previously. Additionally there are two questions, if it is an individual right, and if the protection of that right is incorporated or not. :


 * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON, 1999
 * "A textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms. A distinguishing characteristic of the Second Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause or preamble, which sets out its purpose. No similar clause is found in any other amendment. While states' rights theorists seize upon this first clause to the exclusion of the second, both clauses should be read in pari materia, to give effect and harmonize both clauses, rather than construe them as being mutually exclusive."
 * "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one"
 * "Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people""
 * quite a few other choice quotes.
 * Miller
 * "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators [all] [s]how plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
 * Printz v US : showing it was definitely not settled as a collective right only.
 * If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms", a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections
 * Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.
 * Adams v Williams
 * "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion"
 * Printz 1997 (referring to Miller) saying that Miller ruled gainst the civilian, not because he did not have an individual right, but because that right did not protect non-military weapons
 * In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense
 * Parker (which specifically avoided the incorporation issue because it was a DC case, and thus subject to the bill of rights even if unincorporated)
 * "Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right. It is included among other individual rights, such as the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination. The other Second Amendment cases of the mid-nineteenth century did not touch upon the individual versus collective nature of the Amendment's guarantee"
 * "Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding."
 * Scott v Sandford (dred scott) (obviously controversial for other reasons, but a clear sign that the "individual" philosophy was active quite a long time ago.)
 * The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing
 * "The right of the people..."
 * "For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens,...it would give to them the full liberty of speech in public and in the private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went"
 * Nordyke v King
 * the individual-rights view has enjoyed recent widespread academic endorsement
 * the remarks in Silveira v. Lockyer about the ‘collective rights` theory of the Second Amendment are not persuasive," and that the individual-rights view of Emerson should be adopted

Some other laws and speeches by senators etc showing the individual perspective was well established Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sen Howard, 1866
 * the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures
 * Freedman's Burau Act was passed in 1886
 * and be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery
 * 1789 Cooley
 * The [Second] [A]mendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease....The Right is General.... The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose
 * 1765 Blackstone (on British common law)
 * The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence

Finally, someone is responding to my reliable sources! For three months, I have been begging those that believe that there was an individual right to bear arms issued by any Federal Appellate Court prior to the Fifth Circuit's ruling on the Emerson case in 2001 to put up or shut up. Gaijin42, you get credit for being the first to address the argument. Now we can have a discussion and not a shouting match.

The Emerson Case (Fifth Circuit 2001) was indeed the first federal appellate court to find in dicta an individual right under the Second Amendment. The opinion was dicta (advisory and unnecessary to the ruling) because the court found the gun law in question to be constitutional. The 2-1 decision in Emerson became the one case claiming an individual right in contradistinction to ALL prior cases in every other appellate court pre-2000 (all of which claimed only a militia right) and created the conflict in the circuits that Heller resolved in Emerson's favor. So yes, you are right on Emerson, but wrong if you're suggesting there was an appellate case prior to 2000 that upheld an individual right under the 2A. There was not.

Miller - gives militia argument. Obviously an individual has no right to a weapon unless acting in concert for the common defense.

Printz v United States - There is no mention of the Second Amendment anywhere in the Opinion of the Court. Here's my proof: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html Perhaps you were reading Thomas' concurrence? That has no force of law.

Adams v Williams - again supports militia, not individual right

Parker is the 2007 case that became Heller.

Dred Scott -- Do you really want to rest your whole argument on the most reviled Supreme Court case in history? Even if you do, Dred Scott was certainly not a Second Amendment case and does not address it specifically but merely gives a summary of all the Bill of Rights (without giving all of their details). The Supreme Court was merely listing a parade of horribles that would occur to the nation if slaves were treated like citizens. One of which would be they could carry arms. But Justice Taney makes clear in his opinion that only white males can serve in a militia under state law (page 415) and federal law (page 420). And thus argues that blacks cannot carry arms because they have no right to serve in a militia.

Nordyke v King is a 2009 case post-Heller.

Senator Howard -- I do not know or care much what a single Senator said in 1866 but it sounds like he was briefly listing the Bill of Rights rather than citing them in full or even addressing the Second Amendment particularly.

Freedman's Bureau Laws -- says that freedmen have "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty ..., including the constitutional right to bear arms" but does not state what that constitutional right consists of. Obviously it's the right to bear arms in a militia just like white men.

Even your reference to Cooley points out that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because of their service in a militia.

So while I applaud you for being the first to actually take on my subject, I have shown that NONE of your sources provide a judicial right to bear arms by any court prior to the Emerson case. My point stands that prior to Emerson -- and even more clearly post-Miller and prior to Emerson -- American courts exclusively ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms for service in a militia and not an individual right outside of a militia. That is why the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, and even a Professor of the Second Amendment in a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association! (not to mention the NYT and the WP) all agree that the only right pre-Emerson in the federal appeals courts and pre-Heller in the Supreme Court was a right to keep and bear arms for service in a well regulated miltia.GreekParadise (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please address the three cases I named above between Miller and Emerson stating there is only a milita right, not an individual one.GreekParadise (talk)


 * GreekParadise, you are stating the question backwards. The reality is that the question was not really addressed by high courts until recently, and not by Scotus until Heller.  And so you are pretending that lack of proof for a statement of court finding of individual right back then is a basis for inserting your creative statement for the opposite. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding you have no contrary proof. (I'll keep my $100.) Now as to my statement, do you consider these nine sources: Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Rifle Association Professor, the Constitutional Accountability Center, Cases v. United States, United States v. Warin (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”), and Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”) all to be just making a "creative statement"? Or are you willing to accept that all of these sources--or any of them--may in fact be accurate? I'm simply asking to cite one or more of these sources. Since you have conceded you have no contrary source to suggest there was a judicial-mandated individual right between Miller and Emerson, unless you can make a case that all nine sources I've given you are unreliable, wikipedia policy is you cannot keep out accurate information on the basis of claims of unreliability. All I want to say is what the court said in Love v. Peppersack, that as of 1995, "the lower federal courts ha[d] uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right." And then I want to of course point out that Emerson and Heller changed that. Why are you resistant to this? Do you continue to deny it's a fact? If so, on what basis?GreekParadise (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will concede there was no SCOTUS case on the Second Amendment between Miller (1939) and Heller (2008). Will you concede that in the 50+ years after Miller, all the federal appellate cases that examined the issue from Cases (1943) to Love (1995) cited Miller to find a collective right only? Until Emerson (2001)? It's a simple objective undisputed and undisputable fact supported by innumerable sources.  If you disagree, please state why either (1) the cases I cite don't say what I and everyone else say they say and all my sources are wrong; or (2) show me another case.  And if you agree, then let's include a short statement about it -- which is all I'm asking for -- and finally move on to fairly present the full history of the 2A.GreekParadise (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you miss the point. All of your cases did not delve into the core meaning of 2A. They were about whether a law (restriction) could be upheld. That is a far cry from collective only views. Even in Miller the court did not reject an individual view or they would have simply said that Miller was not a member of any state militia instead of stating the gun in question was against the NFA. The reason that there were so few 2A cases is that 44 states had individual protection laws. Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). In doing so, Congress again declared by law the individual character of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. So much for the long held collective only view. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise, I don’t believe anyone is objecting to having individual/collective controversy in the lead. It is the POV way that you want to include it that’s the problem. You want to say collective was always the view – that’s not true. You want to include lower court cases that did not undertake 2A core meaning analysis – that’s not germane because of the uncertainty. You want to disregard all of the other legal (congress, states) individual right sentiment. To reach a consensus we need to include all views in a brief NPOC way. We came close on 2 February 2013 but you reneged and went further afield POV wise. Time to start again without all the collective only POV spin? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This looks like stonewalling. Grahamboat claims "that's not true", without sourcing.  The three big SCOTUS cases prior to Heller; Presser, Cruikshank, Miller were militia based rulings.  And why mention "states...individual rights sentiment"?  This is an article about a Federal amendment.  (The answer is obvious, this is part of a group of pro-gun politically motivated editors inserting their personal bias into this article. ) SaltyBoatr get wet 23:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Two different versions of the second amendment
In your display of the different texts of the second amendment, the text as (supposedly) adopted by Congress is absolutely grammatically incorrect. Obviously the recorder inserted the extra commas either through ignorance or simply a copy writing error. Why then was the grammar corrected before the amendment could be submitted to the states for ratification? And why has this problem not been discussed in any hearing (at least to my limited knowledge of court proceedings)?

Let us look at the text as you say it was passed by Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Justice Scalia mentions a "prefatory clause." There is only one clause in the sentence: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (sic) shall not be infringed." The simple subject is "right"; the simple predicate, "shall be infringed." No combination of the other words in this sentence can constitute a clause, as there is no verb other than the one in the single independent clause in the sentence ("being" can only be a verb when accompanied by an auxiliary such as "is,""are," "was," or "were."). Consider for example this sentence which corresponds to the second amendment's sentence: "Heavy rain being probable this afternoon, no teacher shall prohibit students' carrying of umbrellas in the school building." Can we interpret that as saying that unless there is a probability of rain, a teacher may prohibit students from carrying their umbrellas?

In the corrected and ratified text of the amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a participial phrase. In order for it to say what the gun control advocates would like it to say, it should be framed this way: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as they are participating in a well regulated militia."Pre-1967 English student (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Pre-1967 English student MLA Handbook


 * Regarding your later paragraphs, that was a main point in the Heller decision.  A preface does not place a condition on the operative clause.      North8000 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The prefatory phrase in the 2nd Amendment (technically an ablative absolute) does not alter the meaning of the main clause. Rather it simply states its purpose, cf Lund, N. (2003, January 6). Will Supreme Court Rule Correctly on 2nd Amendment? Human Events, 59(1), 18. Retrieved from I assume you guys are working on a grammer section and not blogging. J8079s (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, prior to Heller, the US Courts consistently held that the dependent clause regarding the militia DID modify the main clause. Four justices of the Supreme Court still think this way, as did every President of the United States that weighed in on the issue in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. So grammarians, except for the most recent five years of American history, you are indeed right. I firmly believe this historical fact needs to be in this article and that removing all the legal history between 1791 and 2008 is not NPOV. I'm working on a new lead. See discussion above.GreekParadise (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your premise amounts to "'my side' of the argument says it's so, therefore it's so."


 * Please back your your "US Courts (sic) consistently held" argument with veracious citations, or else it's just more circular logic. In any case, we all know you'd couch your "citations" to exclude any and all "US Courts (sic)" which opined unequivocally in favor of gun rights. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.


 * As for your "every President of the United States" comment, it's contrived, hyperbolic, and absurd enough that I'll refrain from further qualifying or discounting such a ludicrous "broad stroke," except to say that whatever the case may be, presidents -- whether for or against gun control (and many *were* against gun-grabbing, didn't you know?) -- do not get to make the final "for the record" decision when it comes to interpreting the law and the constitution; thus is our system of checks and balances.


 * Lastly, if you don't like grammatical and textual analysis (and I am unclear whether or not this is the case with you, as there is some ambiguity in your usage; but I will go out on a limb and say you're disparaging "grammarians" who would *dare* suggest the prefatory line is, as is obvious to many of us, merely an auxiliary flourish that in no way downgrades the obvious and expressed imperative that The People's RIGHT shall not be infringed) -- then perhaps you should look elsewhere than to argue and interpret the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights; language standards and adherence to construction are integral to these matters, or else every self-styled "interpreter" and "flexible-document" -sophist in the lower 48 would be trying to have his/her way in further murdering and shredding these governing documents.YosemiteFudd (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bump until resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we reach a lede consensus
In my first attempt to try for some balance and concerns I propose the following. Rather than nitpick minor points and references (they can be suppied later), I ask that you view the concept as a whole as a starting point. I don’t particularly like it and I hope you don’t either. The point of a compromise is that no one should like it, but is it close enough to be the start of ending this cumbersome discussion? Starting with the first sentence I did not like the words “concerns” or “protects” therefore I decided to use the meaning of 2A as defined by SCOTUS. I tried to cover the individual/collective right issue in a balanced way. I am far from a literary genius so feel free to compose – but the important thing is: is the concept acceptable as a starting point?


 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights ruled by the Supreme Court (2008) to protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. It was incorporated to the States (2010) through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.


 * In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.


 * Prior to the Heller decision, there were many uncertainties about the meaning of the Second Amendment. The first issue to arise was if the Second Amendment pertained to solely the federal government or was also applicable to the states. In United States v. Cruikshank the court chose the former. Following United States v. Miller, where the court reversed a lower court decision upholding the Second Amendment’s restrictions on the National Firearms Act but at the same time did not abandon an individual view point, most lower courts followed a collective right view point. During this same time period most State Legislations and a majority of Congress began to favor an individual right interpretation.

Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to work more directly with the current version. You suggestion has some problems.
 * - The first sentence has the same problem with GreekParadise's more convoluted version ( 16:53, 14 March 2013 ) which read at its most elaborate
 * "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that gives a qualified protection for certain people to keep and bear certain arms."
 * I think this issue can be resolved by a simple change to the current wording, mainly
 * Change "protects" to "concern"
 * "concerns" is more NPOV than "protects." It might be judicial precedent that protects that right, or it could be founder intent; "concerns" is neutral on this point. "concerns" could refer to militia service, but can also include protection of a right There is nothing about the wording of "concerns" that negates what Miguel would like to read into the sentence. If the Amendment protects a right, it also concerns the right. The one wording doesn't rule out the other. However, if the article says that the second amendment protects a right, that strongly implies original intent, rather than case law. There is some debate on whether the individual right comes from founder intent or case law. Given that a neutral wording is available, it should be used.
 * -I think the first paragraph should stick as close as possible to the second amendment as a historical act. The text "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves" starts to get into stuff that should be in later paragraphs or in the body.
 * - The sentence "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government" has problems pointed out by J8079s (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC), mainly
 * "Also per WP:MOS citations do not belong in the lede."
 * - This sentence is inaccurate: "Prior to the Heller decision, there were many uncertainties about the meaning of the Second Amendment". There wasn't much debate until the late 20th century, as several people have noted.  I attempted to broach this subject with this text, which was later modified by two people:
 * In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.
 * I couldn't find all the modifications, but I preserved the balance in my talk comment at 14:20, 12 March 2013
 * Under the "individual rights" model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. This interpretation holds that the opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.
 * I have repeatedly asked for help drafting some balancing text to re-introduce both edits, which nobody has taken me up on.
 * Lately, some edits seem to be starting more and more new threads even though the open, unresolved issues continue to pile up. I don't think we need another proposal for a radical redesign of the intro.  I think there are open issue that need to be worked through.

Inijones (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to keep up....which area are you asking for help on? I know that you have had good ideas. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding only to Grahamboat) Nice work! A few "quick reaction" comments / questions.


 * In paragraph 1 "such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. " seems overly deatiled and I think that the meaning of "within federal enclaves" is unclear
 * In paragraph 3, we should clarify what "pertained to" means (limits the power of that body of government)
 * The (long) last sentence in paragraph 3 contains many statements.....we should make sure that each statemetn is solid / not very controversial.   Also it is very confusing to follow.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I know the comment is hard to follow, like other users, I'm grappling with how to format responses to specific points.
 * I would like help re-inserting a single sentence. I need help taking another editor's subsequent modification of my comment, and re-inserting that in a balanced way.
 * My initial edit was this:


 * In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.


 * Another editor added clarifications, which included this text, which I preserved at 14:20, 12 March 2013:


 * Under the "individual rights" model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. This interpretation holds that the opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.


 * I would like to find a way to balance the clarification about "individual rights" model with one about "collective rights" and then re-insert that.
 * I think this may be a way to provide a neutral -- or at least balanced -- framework for describing the debate itself, without taking sides or getting into the merits of individual claims on either side.
 * Inijones (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "concerns" instead of "protects" is a very strong POV push that attempts to negate the protections provided by the Second Amendment, in a rather transparent POV push. As for "original intent" or "legal history", the Second Amendment clearly protects a right to keep and bear arms by original intent, as the wording in the amendment as passed far predates the subsequent legal rulings by the courts. With that said, and modifying Grahamboat's wording slightly, I propose the following:
 * "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. It was incorporated to the States (in 2010) through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
 * In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions that officially established an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, thereby incorporating the Second Amendment.
 * Prior to the Heller landmark decision, there were many uncertainties about the meaning of the Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court had never ruled on its meaning. The first issue to arise was whether the Second Amendment pertained solely to the federal government or if it were also applicable to the states. In United States v. Cruikshank the court chose the former. In United States v. Miller, the court reversed a lower court decision upholding the Second Amendment’s restrictions on the National Firearms Act while not abandoning an individual rights view point. From Miller in 1939 until Emerson in 2000, lower courts followed a mix of collective rights and individual rights viewpoints. During this same time period most state legislatures and a majority of Congress favored an individual rights interpretation."
 * I believe that this revised wording addresses many, if not most, of the concerns that have been identified by editors. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Miguel,
 * Your statement that "The use of the word 'concerns' instead of 'protects' is a very strong POV push that attempts to negate the protections provided by the Second Amendment" is incorrect in a number of ways
 * 1. It does not negate anything. It is not an attempt to re-litigate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and "concerns" includes "protects."  Concerns is more neutral for the reasons I have identified, which you are not actually addressing.  You are not showing a problem with my linguistic reasoning.  You are not demonstrating how anything is negated, whereas, I am demonstrating how the current wording implies a POV.
 * 2. Your following statement that "the Second Amendment clearly protects a right to keep and bear arms by original intent" is POV. There is debate about this.  Some people consider the second amendment to the the "militia" amendment not the "gun" amendment.  This debate has a linguistic basis.
 * 3. If you are going to continue pushing your specific POV which I have identified in 2. above, you are going to have to find language to square your perspective with historical fact. For example, the Library of Congress states:
 * "Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. "
 * Source: http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
 * This is a reliable source at odds with your unsupported contention.
 * Therefore, I would like to reiterate:
 * 1. We should work from the current text, which is locked in place, and which North8000 identified as last stable (March8).
 * 2. We should avoid sweeping revisions and work on one change at a time
 * 3. On the specific point raised here, on the specific wording of this one sentence in the first paragraph, I want to reiterate that:
 * "concerns" is more NPOV than "protects." It might be judicial precedent that protects that right, or it could be founder intent; "concerns" is neutral on this point. "concerns" could refer to militia service, but can also include protection of a right There is nothing about the wording of "concerns" that negates what Miguel would like to read into the sentence. If the Amendment protects a right, it also concerns the right. The one wording doesn't rule out the other. However, if the article says that the second amendment protects a right, that strongly implies original intent, rather than case law. There is some debate on whether the individual right comes from founder intent or case law. Given that a neutral wording is available, it should be used.
 * If somebody wants to take issue with my linguistic reasoning I'm all ears. But Miguel's arguement against the revision is POV for the reasons I identified above, and my proposed edit of changing this single word is backed by other editors.
 * Inijones (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks North. I agree with your suggestions. Paragraph 1 – let’s put a period after “home”. Paragraph 3 – let’s reword the second sentence to something along the lines of  “The first issue was whether the Second Amendment applied to the States or was reserved for just the federal government (next sentence former”( next sentence former changes to latter). Rewording sentence 4 I came up with “In United States v. Miller  the Court upheld the Second Amendment’s restrictions from the National Firearms Act stating that the gun in question did not have a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia, but did not directly take up the individual right issue. After Miller, most lower courts followed a collective right view point” (please help rewording this). The sources for the last sentence came from Heller amicus curiae briefs by 55 Members of the United States Senate & 250 Members of the House and brief for the States of Texas…(40 states)… Wyoming. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Miguel edits are happening faster than I can respond. Your edit seems to fit the bill. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like what I'm reading here. Maybe we should come up with a third word, rather than "concerns" or "protects". How about "enumerates"? We could still use "protects" regarding Heller and McDonald, as the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as protecting an individual RKBA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a more technically correct compromise. Inijones (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is precisely because the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms that the specific word "protects" should be used. Otherwise, it is a POV push to attempt to subvert what the court has ruled. "Protects" is clearly the right word to use. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SMP0328 isn't saying not to use "protects." He is saying that "protects" should be used with respect to Heller and McDonald, which is what the Supreme Court did in those cases.  "Concerns" is agnostic with respect to founder intent, and is the most neutral way to word that sentence in the first paragraph. Inijones (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree and it goes beyond that. "Protect" rights is what most amendments do, they don't just "concern" them. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the first paragraph should be revised along the lines proposed above, to the effect: "Paragraph 1 – let’s put a period after “home”. Paragraph 3 – let’s reword the second sentence to something along the lines of “The first issue was whether the Second Amendment applied to the States or was reserved for just the federal government (next sentence former”( next sentence former changes to latter)."
 * I have consistently had problems with re-wording the first paragraph in more baroque ways.


 * North8000, I don't think you are adequately appreciating why I and at least two other editors are interested in the single, specific edit, of rephrasing "protects" with "concerns." I have stated the case repeatedly, most recently in my comment above at 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC).  Nobody has demonstrated a problem with my reasoning, but two people have supported it.
 * While it is the case that "Protect" rights is what most amendments do, it is not what all do. Some restrict the power of the federal government.  The 14th Amendment defines citizenship.  "Concerns" does not negate "protects."
 * Maybe the fallback position here is to leave it "protects." But I want to work with the current text, and work with one edit at a time, so they can be itemized and discussed individually.
 * Inijones (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Core Question Ignoring the wilder stuff, I think that here is core underlying open content question, and would also help us sort through a few items in the proposals.


 * I agree that the amendment protects a RKBA. In the interest of reaching a compromise with those who support using "concerns", what about saying that the amendment "has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms"? That way those who do not agree with Heller and McDonald won't be able to reasonably claim that the article is saying Heller and McDonald are correct. The article will simply be stating how the Supreme Court currently interprets the amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we could either just use the 2A wording, or if we add "individual" then it should mention/ follow Scotus. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quote the amendment in the Introduction; that's handled in the Text section. I have no objection to a short quote from Heller or McDonald. SMP0328. (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I likewise don't want to quote the amendment in the Intro. However, I do think that the "protects" wording is specifically needed.  This could be done, though, with a short quote from Heller and/or McDonald.  Ultimately, whether or not editors agree with the Supreme Court is irrelevant.  What matters are cited statements that are verifiable. Only the Supreme Court gets to decide the meaning of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.  For this reason, the use of "protects" wording seems to be the most in line with cited and verifiable sources.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See my response below, we have to be consistent with the other amendments and the wording and we should say what the thing does in plain language. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, that is what the words say and that is what it means.  The phrase "the people" appears in multiple amendments and throughout the text and the courts have ruled that it applies to the individual....ie in the Fourth Amendment "the people" do not collectively have a right to be safe in their homes.....each individual has a right to be safe and secure in their homes.  This is settled case law most lately with Heller and Mcdonald.  That is NPOV and factual.  I'm sure there's some guy out there saying that freedom of speech does not extend to owning "cameras" because they are horrible instruments that can be used to create child pornography (a felonious crime!). No, people have a right to cameras and we prosecute those who misuse cameras and break the law (by transgressing on the rights of another).  Because we have a crazy guy out there doesn't mean we should then have to caveat the article here to include that radical viewpoint that the courts have ruled that the first amendment has been interpretted by the courts to mean one thing.  Let's be consistent and let's use common sense - we don't need to include the extreme radical viewpoint.  The wording of the second amendment is straighforward and if somebody wants to go engage in verbal gymnastics of sophistry in pursuit of their little agenda, well, they can take their little fight elsewhere outside of the encyclopedia.  This should be a noncontentious encyclopedic entry.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justanonymous, here. As I noted previously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people.  This is also consistent with the viewpoint that the right is individual, and puts the lie to the claim that the courts uniformly held only a collective viewpoint of the Second Amendment from Miller in 1939 until Emerson in 2000, being Verdugo-Urquirdez was in 1990.  There are other cases, in the lower courts as well as in the Supreme Court that also support a mix of views (individual vs. collective) that were noted by the courts during even this 1939-1990 time frame. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Justanonymous, you say " we should say what the thing does in plain language. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, that is what the words say and that is what it means." Please review the Amendment. You will see that's not what it says.  The Second Amendment does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in the way the First Amendment categorically says "Congress shall pass no law..."  Unlike the other Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment begins with a dependent clause ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") and the controversy is whether this dependent clause modifies the following independent clause or is unnecessary excess words the Founders included without any reason or intention of limitation.  Prior to Heller, courts were "textualist" and found that these first thirteen words of the Second Amendment matter.  Post-Heller, the Supreme Court has ruled the Amendment's first thirteen words are superfluous. But I believe, we should say in the first sentence what the Second Amendment actually says and leave how it's been interpreted to a later sentence.GreekParadise (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * those people had just come out of a revolution. Guns weren't a nice to have back then, without a good musket your family might not have gotten protein.  Deer is yummy as is turkey! And babies need it to grow.....vegan babies died of malnutrition.   that was a Given that your right to hunt and survive was inalienable! No, the introductory clause was there because the militia was the citizenry and we drew from them as needed for defense and of course they should be armed and this was a document about government.  And yes even today we are all the militia, when thing go to hell in a handbasket and it does from time to time, my neighbors and i keep order until we reform government by opening the roads etc at which point we turn over criminals caught looting etc to our elected sheriff for disposition.   Plenty of court cases clarify that the people mean individuals so its not some collectivist right also so don't go there.    arms are the common arms technology of the age.  They didn't bother with the inalienable right to self defense or the inalienable right to survive....which the ninth implicitly protects. They didn't think sophists would do verbal gymnastics to that extreme but here you are, sitting in a little posh industrial environment with everything brought to you.  It's an individual Right to own firearms.  The Supreme Court affirmed this.  Stop arguing, you're going to strain yourself with the contortions and cherry picking, I've read your position, it's found wanting.....and yes I'll favor Scalia's logic over yours.  So stop regurgitating ad nauseum.  I know where you stand. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with GreekParadise. It is common to say colloquially that "the first amendment protects the right to bear arms" but, given that there has been a fair amount of linguistic debate about the meaning of the second amendment's punctuation, grammar, and what words such as "arms" meant when they were written, it is worth looking at the wording of the text, as GreekParadise suggests. The wording says "the right of the people shall not be infringed [presumably by Congress]." As such, the amendment technically restricts the power of the federal government, just as the First Amendment says, "congress shall pass no law."
 * So while Heller is the law of the land, so to speak, due to the activity of the courts, many view the law having been different in the past, and some suppose the law may be different in the future. Heller is clear that it does not overturn precedent, meaning, that the interpretation under Miller is current as well.
 * Given that case law works this way, and that there are ambiguities in the text of the amendment itself, there is disagreement about whether the individual right in the second amendment is protected by the founder intent or by judicial precedent. There is a neutral way to reflect this ambiguity in the text, without violating NPOV.
 * Changing the current wording from "protects" to "concerns" is more NPOV because it is agnostic as to whether the text itself (and therefore founder intent) protects the right of the people, or whether it is judicial precedent (and thus, interpretive tradition) that protects this individual right. The wording "concerns" does not negate "protects," but "protects" implies a historical relationship that "concerns" does not.
 * I do not support elaborate weasel-word laden qualifiers, I think the first paragraph should stay roughly as it is, but I also think that changing "protects" to "concerns" creates a more NPOV statement.
 * This change has been supported by myself, GreekParadise, and SMP0328 (who has re-inserted the edit at least twice after other edits were reverted). Inijones (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I support using both words. The amendment concerns the RKBA and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting an individual RKBA. Every part of the Bill of Rights concerns a right and, to the extent determined by the Supreme Court, protects that right. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. My views are similar to yours.  To be clear on my position, I think "concerns" is more NPOV but that "protects" is a better fall-back position than some of the more elaborate wordings I've seen here.
 * I also want to point out that I proposed this edit in conjunction with other edits, designed to avoid a specific POV problem.
 * Inijones (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A core question
I think we need to decide/discuss: generally what should the lead say/not say regarding the courts' leanings on the individual vs. collective-only right question prior to Heller. The possibilities are:
 * A Say leaned towards "collective-only"
 * B Say leaned towards individual right
 * C Say it was a mixed bag
 * D Say there was no significant leaning decisions
 * E Say nothing on this question.

Please don't "vote"; this isn't designed or intended for that. It's more to try to help the discussion.

North8000 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should engage in WP:SYNTH regarding where courts stood on the matter especially in the lede where we really can't get into much depth on the matter. Heller and Mcdonald were landmark cases and the definitively settled the matter.  Beyond that on the lede  we have to be consistent with the other Amendments that this is a part of.  Consider the following wording:
 * It's categorically unjust to change the text of the lede to say that the second amendment is the amendment that has been interpretted to protect the right to keep and bear arms. If we did that, we'd have to change the language of every amendment that has been interpretted by the courts (mostly all of them).  So I think we have to be straighforward, npov, and consistent with the other articles. We shouldn't weasle word it because a couple of activist editors want it so and only with respect to this amendment or others.  Bottom line the first amendment protects free speech, the second protects the right to keep and bear arms, the fourth protects against unreasonable search ans seizure, the fifth protects you against incrimination etc.  -Justanonymous (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's categorically unjust to change the text of the lede to say that the second amendment is the amendment that has been interpretted to protect the right to keep and bear arms. If we did that, we'd have to change the language of every amendment that has been interpretted by the courts (mostly all of them).  So I think we have to be straighforward, npov, and consistent with the other articles. We shouldn't weasle word it because a couple of activist editors want it so and only with respect to this amendment or others.  Bottom line the first amendment protects free speech, the second protects the right to keep and bear arms, the fourth protects against unreasonable search ans seizure, the fifth protects you against incrimination etc.  -Justanonymous (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On the opening sentence - I think Miguel 16:52, 15 March 2013 says it best. On the core question - some form of C mixed bag. On consistency with the other amendments I’m OK with either using the first paragraph only or the way it has evolved in the present discussion. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Miguel's comment at 16:52 15 March 2013 that you are here agreeing with as "best" has unaddressed problems, which I have identified above at 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Specifically, his comment that "the Second Amendment clearly protects a right to keep and bear arms by original intent" is POV.


 * Many people consider the 2nd Amendment to be the "militia amendment" rather than the "gun amendment." Individuals and courts have debated what the founders intended with their punctuation, with the grammatical relationship of one clause to another, and whether the term "arms" relates to military equipment or not.


 * Given the debate here on this page and elsewhere, I don't see how anything is "clearly" "by original intent." To make such an unambiguously worded and unsupported statement about founder intent is POV.


 * I think there are ways to identify the debate as existing without taking sides, but if such language cannot be agreed upon, I think the lead should consist only of the first paragraph as is, and all discussion of case law should be left to the body. I think one possible way to start looking at a neutral way to phrase this issue is contained in my comment at 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC).  When I put that edit in days ago, at least two other editors subsequently  made modifications to it to clarify, suggesting that it is something that can be worked with. Inijones (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm submitting the question for dispute resolution. As you know, I have a large number of sources (ten?) that explicitly say A.  As everyone else here also knows, to this date, no one has provided ANY source that says anything other than A.  I am confident that if a wide group of editors reviews my sources -- and the lack of sources for anything else -- they will find that indeed the LOC, CRS, NYT, WP, the CAC, scholars and 3 or 4 federal cases are indeed reliable. My request for dispute is resolution is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution. You are each being notified individually on your talk pages as well.GreekParadise (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here again are 10 of my sources:

1. Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

2. United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

3. Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

4. Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971) ("Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear Arms' applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm") (citing United States v. Miller).

5. Front page article in Washington Post, March 13, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

6. Congressional Research Service -  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [after Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms"

7. Library of Congress - http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php "Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. "

8. Front page article in New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

"'In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history [in the Heller case], a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias.'"

9. New Yorker - Jeffrey Toobin - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html If you think that Toobin is just giving his opinion, then I would suggest it is also proper to remove the comment from Professor Andrew McClurg later in the article.

10. Constitutional Accountability Center - http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Where%20Will%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Revolution%20Lead.pdf

"'Twenty-five years ago, it would have been outlandish to predict that the Supreme Court would recognize that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. The Reagan Justice Department’s version of Crossroads1 did not mention the Second Amendment, and in 1991, no less of an authority than Warren E. Burger, the moderately conservative former Chief Justice of the United States, stated in an interview that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”2 Burger’s view, that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms could not be separated from militia service, was shared by other prominent conservatives, including failed Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who in 1989 argued that the Second Amendment works “to guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.”3 But what Burger viewed to be a “fraud,” and what Bork viewed as a mistaken view of the Constitution’s original meaning, is now the law of the land, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s controversial and deeply divided 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.4'"

I submit that each and every one of these sources are correct and there has yet to be presented a contrary source.GreekParadise (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You just keep pasting this huge block of text in instead of discussing.  As has been said in the other places you pasted it,  what you are trying to put in does not follow from and actually conflicts with those of these sources which are objective and reliable, and the other are cherry picked from opinion pieces.   Also, you are implying that someone must prove the opposite in order for you not put your wp:synth/wp:or/wp:ver-violating material.  This is wrong on two levels.   First it is against how Wikipedia works.     Second, the reality is that it was mixed pre-Heller, so neither "extreme" is the cases.   You are in effect saying that one "extreme" must be proven in order to not put in the other "extreme" North8000 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I define truth by reliable objective sources saying so. How are my sources any less reliable than any other sources in the article? I have verbatim quotations from cases.  Do you claim I misquoted or took the quotes out of context? Be specific. If you disagree with any or every single source or quotation here, please demonstrate specifically why.  For example, which do you think are opinion pieces? (And do you agree to clear opinions from this article, such as the one by Andrew McClurg?) Where do you think I'm cherrypicking?  Where do you see conflict in a reliable source?  It's like I claim Brown v. Board of Education ended segregation or gravity exists and cite ten reliable sources and you respond by saying "Nope and I don't have to prove otherwise."  That's unhelpful. I've been asking you for three months to spell out where you think I'm wrong. Because you and other editors refuse to do so, I've had to seek dispute resolution.GreekParadise (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the article is about facts. If you're seeking truth, the philosophy course is across the hall. You've been told that you are cherry picking, your cherry picked viewpoints are a narrow subset of a lot of case law that impacts the amendments and no, I'm not going to spend a lifetime educating you.  Posting 5,000 bytes everytime you want to make your point makes it very hard to have a discussion and at the end of the day it's the same exact discussion.  The consensus is not with you.  I feel like I'm stuck in Groundhog Day with you.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @GreekParadise, you missed the particular point in my last sentence. There are roughly three possibilities:
 * Imply that it was addressed and that it was "collective-only"
 * Say that it was mixed / and /or not significantly addressed
 * Imply that it was addressed and it was "also an individual right"
 * You are basically saying that people need to prove #3 to keep you from putting in #1. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The main point that GreekParadise still doesn’t get is: all the cases he wants to cite would have the same outcome in the post Heller era because they were not individual/collective right issues but rather gun restriction issues. Therefore, they become trivia - not worthy to be in the lede. Post Heller you still must be over 18, without criminal history, background checks for handguns, etc. As much evidence as he wants to present for a history of a collective view there is equal, perhaps greater, evidence for an individual viewpoint from the founding of the country. That’s one more reason why I favor “protects” over “concerns”. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Grahamboat,


 * I agree that GreekParadise seems over-aggressive, and has overshot more than one opportunity for a compromise.


 * But I also think that reading any proposed contribution into a individual right vs. collective right framework similarly heads off opportunities for compromise.


 * Changing the wording of the first sentence from "protects" to "concerns" does not rule out the possibility that the Second Amendment protects this right; however, using "protects" in this context implies a certain view of founder intent that "concerns" does not. For this reason, "concerns" is more neutral.


 * SMP0328 has suggested saying in the first paragraph that the 2nd Amendment "concerns" and saying in the third paragraph that Heller "protects." This makes it clear that the individual right to bear arms is protected, without making any implications about the historical bearing of this protection.


 * Additionally, I don't think it's fair to characterize Miller as "trivia" since the ruling still stands. The historical perspective it lends is one reason for including it, but another is to give balance to the discussion of Heller.  Yet another reason is simply because it is every bit as much the law of the land as Heller.


 * I don't think a discussion of "collective rights" prior to Heller has to be seen as an attack on the "individual rights" interpretation. Technically, both interpretations co-exist right now.  That's fact.  If this co-existence is a problem for discussion in a forum like Wikipedia, it is because of how the Heller decision is worded.  If Heller is going to be included in the intro, this issue at least deserves to be addressed.


 * With respect to the notion that "there is equal, perhaps greater, evidence for an individual viewpoint from the founding of the country", there is nothing in a focused discussion of Miller that negates this view.


 * But I think that view is too contentious to include without becoming POV. For example, the Library of Congress says:


 * "Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. "


 * http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php


 * Now, I am not attempting to get that text into the article, but I think it does underscore the fact that, in some manner, the interpretation or application of the Second Amendment has changed over time, and that the matter has been more or less contentious at different times.


 * I have attempted to broach the subject of this debate in an even handed way with this proposed addition to the second paragraph:


 * "In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.[8]"


 * Sourcing the "debate" proper to the latter part of the 20th Century is factually compatible with your remark here:


 * I can agree to some mention of prior Heller views on collective rights but not to present it in such a way that it was the only or “main” view. There is plenty of evidence showing most of congress and all presidents from 1960 onward supported an individual right view. None of the prior legal cases mentioned; attempted a comprehensive review of the meaning.Grahamboat (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * and here:


 * I don’t know where the “1995” came from, but in 1982 a bipartisan subcommittee on the constitution of the committee on the judiciary United States Senate issued a report THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS whereby the individual right was championed as well as the collective right. So the issues were argued well before 1995. Cheers. `Grahamboat (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed edit, beginning "In the latter part of the 20th century" was modified by at least two editors, suggesting it is in some manner satisfactory, with clarifications. I've preserved what other editors added to my edit on the talk page here at Inijones (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC).


 * The edit beginning "In the latter part of the 20th century" doesn't even specify when the debate started.  It only makes a sourced statement about the state of the debate at a specific point in time, which you have pointed to also.


 * Inijones (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying "latter part of the 20th century" instead of "pre Heller" is sort of misleading / cherry picking.  As I recall there was a major :individual tight" decision almost a decade before Heller.  Ditto for saying that without including the gorilla in the living room (that there weren't any major decisions on the topic during that period. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment has a number of problems.


 * First, my proposed edit is not "cherry picking." If you think I'm cherry-picking, then I don't think you know what the term means.  Cherry-picking means selectively choosing.  I'm not picking one century out of a choice of a dozen in order to make a biased case.  There's nothing misleading about it.  The latter part of the 20th century was pre-heller.  If you think that every facet of the 2nd Amendment needs to be evaluated solely in terms of Heller, that's a bias.  It's recent-ism, it makes value judgements about the importance of Heller, and it's a-historical, as such an exclusive reading would imply that the second amendment was incoherent before the Heller ruling.  My edit is an attempt to say an debate exists without taking sides, without bias.  And at least two other editors have contributed additions to it, as I've indicated.


 * Second, you say "As I recall there was a major :individual tight" decision almost a decade before Heller." Here on Wikipedia, you need references.  You can't just cite a vague recollection and use it as encyclopedic content.


 * Third, I'm not even clear on what your statement relates to where you say: "Ditto for saying that without including the gorilla in the living room (that there weren't any major decisions on the topic during that period."   I didn't say anything about any gorillas, or any decisions being "major."


 * Again, my edit reads:


 * "In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.[8]"


 * '''You've done nothing to show any substantive problem with my proposed edit or my rationale.

'''
 * Inijones (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Inijones,

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not trivializing Miller but all of the lower court cases.

As you know I have no problem with a discussion of "collective rights"

I don’t think it’s possible to specify when the debate started. My guess would be probably sometime in the 1960’s.

Regarding “CONCERN” - in the spirit of reaching a consensus by compromise of the best verb describing the meaning of 2A let’s look at what has been suggested. Most of us prefer Protects; Inijones and others want Concerns; SMP0328 has suggested Enumerates as a possible alternative; to that I could add Upholds and Preserves. Looking at the way other amendments handled it we have: 1A prohibits; 2A shall not be infringed; 3A Prohibits; 4A guards against; 5A protects against; 6A sets forth rights & protections; 7A codifies the right; 8A prohibiting; 9A addresses rights; 10A are reserved.

Starting with Concerns we have to ask, what does it concern? It concerns the protection of a right or, the other way around, it prohibits making of a law that infringes on that right. Obviously Concerns doesn’t work. From the other amendments on a positive side we have: Protects, Sets forth, Codifies and Addresses and from the negative we have: Prohibits, Guards against, Protects against, and Prohibiting. The most neutral would be Addresses but that’s from the Ninth A which does not cover a specific law but to an unknown group of possible laws. That leaves Sets forth and Codifies: both are OK I would choose Codify (remember this is a suggested compromise to Protect). From the negative aspect, which 2A uses, we have to use a more cumbersome Prohibits - which would translate into: “making any law that would infringe on...” IMHO, if forced to compromise, I could accept Codify, and possibly Sets forth. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your question is right on the money.


 * When you ask "Starting with Concerns we have to ask, what does it concern?"  the ambiguity is exactly why the edit is more neutral.


 * If the 2nd Amendment "prohibits" then it still "concerns." What does the 2nd Amendment concern?  It concerns prohibitions against certain acts of Congress.


 * The difference between my edit and what exists is that "protects" implies certain historical relationships that "concerns" does not.


 * Inijones (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add to my prior edit.
 * Regarding: Saying "latter part of the 20th century" I’m working off Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2013 where it says “Prior to the Heller landmark decision.” Yea I know it’s getting confusing and difficult to navigate but I think that version come closest to a compromise. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits you identify by Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2013 have NPOV problems which I have already identified in reply at Inijones (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC).


 * You are also dodging the issue, as you are not actually saying anything about my reply. Miguel was editing the first sentence there to fill it with POV weasel words. For example: "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia" is not in the text of the 2nd Amendment.  "traditionally lawful purposes" is not in the text of the 2nd amendment.  There seems to be consensus that the first paragraph should be just the most bare facts, and I have consistently opposed efforts by GreekParadise and others to load it with qualifiers.


 * Miguel said nothing in that post, as you imply he did, about my edit "latter part of the 20th century" If you mean to imply that the phrase "pre-heller" is preferable to the "the latter part of the 20th Century," that has problems I've already addressed in replying to North8000 just above at 22:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifically,


 * The latter part of the 20th century was pre-heller. If you think that every facet of the 2nd Amendment needs to be evaluated solely in terms of Heller, that's a bias.  It's recent-ism, it makes value judgements about the importance of Heller, and it's a-historical, as such an exclusive reading would imply that the second amendment was incoherent before the Heller ruling.  My edit is an attempt to say an debate exists without taking sides, without bias.  And at least two other editors have contributed additions to it, as I've indicated.


 * Inijones (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree 2A had a degree of ambiguity, the opening should state what 2A means. The ambiguity should come in paragraph 3. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the 2nd amendment has ambiguity. I am saying that a little ambiguity may help resolve an editorial dispute. And you're not being clear on where you think the ambiguity should be placed in the 3rd paragraph. That's not a helpful suggestion. Inijones (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, Concerns is defiantly more neutral than Protects. It’s Kind of neutral for neutralities sake. Fits in with politically correct where 9/11 terrorists are called Islamic freedom fighters. While Concerns is more neutral that does not make Protect POV. Protect is more truthful and we must strive for truth no matter who becomes offended. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Grahamboat,
 * I'm glad you agree with me, GreekParadise, and SMP0328 in your comment above at 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC) that "Yes indeed, Concerns is defiantly more neutral than Protects"
 * I would like to point out, though, that this edit is not "neutral for neutralities sake," as you say, but neutrality for the sake of resolving an editorial dispute.
 * Here is the history of the edit:
 * GreekParadise was upset with the first paragraph and quoted the 2nd Amendment directly in the first paragraph. Then, at  21:38, 9 March 2013‎ user SMP0328 removed the direct quote and replaced it with "protects," noting in the edit summary "Replaced redundant quote with a general description."
 * To pacify both parties, I suggested changing "protects" to "concerns" at 17:47, 11 March 2013‎ with the rationale stated in the edit summary: "wording tweak. text of amendment already present in article. whether by original intent or judicial precedent, the 2nd amendment is what it is today. perhaps saying "concerns" is better than the former "protects" as it is agnostic on how this came about".
 * As editors continued to work on the page, the edit was at some point removed when multiple edits were reverted. SMP0328 subsequently re-inserted "concerns" after reverts at  22:28, 11 March 2013‎ ("Replaced redundant quote with a neutral description") and at  18:53, 12 March 2013‎ ("Restored accidentally reverted edit").
 * On the talk page, SMP0328 qualified his or her support for "concerns" at (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), saying "To be clear, I support using both words." I understood that comment to mean, support for "concerns" in the first paragraph (with respect to the text of the amendment), AND "protects" in the third (with respect to the meaning of the text, as discussed in Heller).
 * I would also like to note that SMP0328 also offered a stronger wording at SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), that the 2nd Amendment "has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms". This is not what I am pursuing.
 * Lastly, I would like to emphasize with respect to your previous comment, that neutrality for neutrality's sake is a core principle on Wikipedia. If you disagree with that, maybe you should find a better venue for your views.Inijones (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Inijones – You and I might be closer than you think. So would you accept “concerns the protection of an individual right...”? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Grahamboat,
 * I think "concerns the protection of an individual right" is more problematic because the second amendment also concerns a collective right. Heller did not overturn Miller, and so both "individual rights" and "collective rights" interpretations co-exist.  I don't think it's right to mention one to the exclusion of the other.
 * I think "protects" should be the fall-back position since, while lacking nuance, it keep the first paragraph tied to basic historical fact. I would like to reiterate SMP0328's suggestion that the first paragraph read "concerns" and that the third paragraph read "protects" but, most casual readers won't notice a difference, and both "protects" and "concerns" are accurate in some sense.
 * I hear you say that the first paragraph should state what the second amendment means, but I disagree. The courts decide what the amendment means and there is already a paragraph on the courts, with a new intervening paragraph that provides a transition from statements about the text itself as a historical act, to the courts interpreting the meaning.
 * I think if there's no agreement on changing "protects" to "concerns" then the first paragraph should stay as is. Adding qualifiers only seems to make it more contentious. Inijones (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Or "concerns the protection of a right of the people to keep and bear arms for service in a militia and, according to recent Supreme Court rulings, as a qualified individual right as well." To claim that it is and has always been an individual right is strong-POV pushing. It pretends there has never been a controversy over the Amendment's interpretation and pretends Heller took place in 1791! I prefer the neutral "concerns" or the accurate "grants a qualified protection" (qualified by militia? Other things? We don't say but it fits both individual and collective views). Remember this is NOT an article on Heller. It's an article on the Second Amendment, which predates Heller by more than 200 years and expressly claims that the purpose for the RKPA is the necessity of a militia, no matter how much people want to pretend the first thirteen words of the Amendment don't exist. Sadly, the only way to achieve consensus over such a controversial thing may be just to quote the Amendment. We will always disagree on what the 2A means but we can at least agree (apart from a comma or two) on its text.GreekParadise (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Constitution means what the U.S. Supreme Court rules it to mean (see e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores). In this case, that means the Second Amendment protects/concerns an individual right to bear arms without relation to militia service (see Heller). Does the amendment also protect/concern State militias? It certainly references them. The answer is we don't know until the Supreme Court rules on that matter. When it comes to what the Second Amendment means, the Supreme Court is the official standard. As for this right being qualified, of course it's qualified. Every right on Earth is qualified in some way. Even the right to life is not absolute. So there is no need to refer to this right as being qualified. SMP0328. (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By that logic, there should be no wikipedia entry on the Third Amend., because the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. No need to cite the text either, since, in your view, the text does not constrain the Supreme Court one iota (even though they curiously swear an oath to uphold it). We will also need to change the Ninth Amend. lead to say the Ninth Amend. bans abortion. After all, that's what the most recent Supreme Court opinion (Roe v. Wade) says. Ignore the text or history of the Ninth Amendment. If the current Supreme Court says it bans abortion, it not only does; it must by your logic ALWAYS have done so, and the entire history of the Ninth Amendment prior to 1972 is irrelevant. I can see it now: "The Ninth Amendment is that part of the Constitution that bans abortion."  Think anyone would complain?GreekParadise (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi GreekParadise,
 * I think your suggestion "concerns the protection of a right of the people to keep and bear arms for service in a militia and, according to recent Supreme Court rulings, as a qualified individual right as well" has correct logical form, but unnecessarily loads the first paragraph with qualifiers that can just as easily be discussed in the second or third paragraphs.
 * I think the first paragraph has to state just the most bare facts about the text itself, but it also needs to be a point of reference for all editors concerned here. Adding "qualified right" is perceived as an attack on the "individual rights" interpretation, and, while I disagree, I have a sense for why.
 * I think SMP0328 made a good suggestion when he said that the first paragraph should read "concerns" while the third paragraph should make it explicit "protects." This accomplishes your goal without loading the first paragraph with qualifiers and weasel words.  Inijones (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also check out the other Amendments. None of them have the most recent Supreme Court interpretation in the lead, and the few that do mention a landmark case (such as incorporation) also say what the law was prior to that case. See, e.g., 1st and 24th Amend. I have repeatedly offered my willingness to remove the Heller case from the lead entirely. Let's just repeat what the Second Amend. actually says -- or say what it concerns -- and leave all judicial interpretations to the body of the article. You seem to concede that the pre-2008 history of the Second Amendment does matter in the body of the article. So let's put the entire judicial history there and be done with it. However, if we do mention Heller (qualified non-militia RKBA) in the lead, we are also required to mention the prior interpretation (militia RKPA) that existed in history more than ten times longer than Heller has thus far, not only to avoid violating WP:UNDUE and WP:Recentism but also to be consistent with every other Constitutional Amendment entry in wikipedia.GreekParadise (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lower court cases
The question here is do lower court cases, regarding introduction of political spin, belong in the lede? Comments about Miller or individual/collective rights or Protect/Concern should be posted elsewhere. GP has opened a similar section, regarding sources, (see below) but I think we need to take a narrower approach to see if we can reach a consensus on this sole issue. I think we are getting close to a lede consensus. I purposely posted this subsection under Can we reach a lede consensus to keep from jumping all around this Talk page. Let’s stay focused and solve one issue at a time.


 * I say they do not belong.
 * 1. only added to present a political spin very POV.
 * 2. minority view WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.
 * 3. lower courts do not set a national precedence.
 * 4. none of the cases dealt directly with individual vs collective right issues.
 * 5. the outcomes did not change anything - the issues are as viable now as they were pre Heller.
 * 6. distorts the meaning of 2A.
 * Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The lower court cases' interpretation of the Supreme Court case of Miller established the Second Amendment for more than 60+ years as a militia right. They are thus more influential historically than a recent Supreme Court opinion lasting less than five years. It is political spin to deny history. It is not political spin to tell a truthful history.

2. They are not only NOT the minority view. They are more than the majority view, because they were the UNANIMOUS view.

3. They did set the national precedent according to all the sources which you have thus far refused to review.

4. Wrong.

5. Wrong.

6. Not according to the cases they don't.GreekParadise (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers to you as well, Grahamboat. I have a homework assignment for you, which, if you are a person of integrity who values truth above propaganda, you will pursue. I have found dozens of cases in every single one of the Eleven Circuit Courts of Appeal of the United States that cite the Supreme Court opinion in Miller to firmly reject an individual RKBA under the Second Amendment outside of a well-regulated militia. I won't ask you to read all the dozens of cases I have read, just at least one case from every federal circuit, representing every one of the fifty states (but not DC). Here they are:

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984)

United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997)

Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995)

United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)

United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976)

Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983)

United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993)

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)

United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978)

United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)

If you read just a few of these cases, you will see how pervasive the firm rejection of the Heller view was pre-Heller. You would also learn -- and this may shock you -- that the Supreme Court repeatedly ACCEPTED these rulings by refusing to take up a case to overturn them. One reason the Supreme Court often accepts a case is when there is a "conflict among the circuits." But when the circuits unanimously agree that the Second Amendment does not protect any individual RKPA outside of service in a militia, the Supreme Court has no need to intervene. There is no disagreement! Look at how often the Supreme Court was asked to review these cases and declined: United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 46 (1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978) Once you've read the cases, we can have a fruitful discussion. If you refuse to read the cases or read the sources I've provided, we will continue to go in circles. A child that puts his fingers in his ears and screams "Na Na Na Na Na!" because he doesn't want to learn math can never change the fact that 2+2=4. The truth exists independently of the one who refuses to listen to it.

Read the cases, Grahamboat, and the sources. I think you will be surprised to see how unanimously ALL of them are in CLEARLY DENYING that the Second Amendment protects any gun possessed by any individual outside of a well regulated state milita. Pick one or two of the cases above. Even Hale, which comes from a very conservative gun-owning part of the country couldn't be more clear. Read the cases. Then make your argument. Show me you know what you're talking about and we might actually get somewhere. I'm actually quite confident that if you are intellectually honest, you'll read three or four of these cases and then give up after conceding that I'm right.

Either way you can't trump sources with your own opinion. (See WP:SOURCES and WP:NOR.) You and all the editors that continue to do so are wasting everyone's time. You won't ever convince me -- or anyone else who believes in objective reality -- that 2+2=5. It doesn't. And I'm starting to think you know I'm right. Because if you didn't fear I was right, you would actually READ THE CASES.GreekParadise (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I read (some of) the cases

 * Cases - Specifically says that miller was not comprehensive, and is ambiguous regarding the nature and extent of the right. "Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go."
 * Toner - Discusses the nature of the right in relation to the type of firearms, does NOT discuss the nature of individual vs collective " (in the absence of evidence showing that firearm has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Second Amendment does not guarantee right to keep and bear such a weapon)"
 * Rybar, Hale - I concur that this case argues generally against the individual rights view. But lower court rulings are wiped out by supreme court rulings all the time. These fall into that bucket.

It is irrefutable that Miller did not definitively address the collective/individual question. I concede that in the interim, lower courts took it upon themselves to generally (but not unanimously, and usually ambiguously) side with the collective view. That viewpoint has now been directly addressed, and determined to be wrong. In a history section, we can outline all of this, and should. In the high level summary of the amendment and its meaning, we should address the current law and understanding, and briefly mention historical controversies and debates. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can vague recollections trump reliable sources?
CAN VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS TRUMP RELIABLE SOURCES?

THE ANSWER IS NO!

AND EVERY TIME YOU ATTEMPT TO CENSOR ME BY REMOVING MY WORDS IN THIS HEADING (THREE TIMES SO FAR!), I WILL RETURN IT.

STOP THIS CRAP. YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES: READ THE SOURCES OR STOP OBJECTING TO THEM BASED ON YOUR VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS.

Try argument. Try reasoned discourse. Try reviewing sources. Try truth.

Put up or shut up. If you can't handle truth, you shouldn't be editing on wikipedia.GreekParadise (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To me the heart of the disagreement lies in the statement made above by an editor:


 * Saying "latter part of the 20th century" instead of "pre Heller" is sort of misleading / cherry picking.  As I recall there was a major :individual tight" decision almost a decade before Heller.  Ditto for saying that without including the gorilla in the living room (that there weren't any major decisions on the topic during that period)

Unfortunately, unless this editor is talking about Emerson, he/she "recalls" incorrectly. There was not a single federal case prior to Emerson (2001) that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms or discounted the militia rationale for the Second Amendment. And if any editors here have taken the time to review my sources -- has anyone? be honest -- they would know that there are at least five federal cases that explicitly upheld the militia view from the early 1940's well into the 1990's. Whether these cases are "major" enough for this editor's personal taste is subjective, but these cases are the reason why for sixty years, the militia view prevailed in the US Courts and among scholars and politicians, including most prominent conservatives (Bork, Chief Justice Burger, Reagan).

But the "recollection" speaks to a more important point that is broader than this article alone. Do unsourced recollections have any place in wikipedia? I say no. I say that those of who do our homework and provide sources should not have to be burdened by folks' vague recalling things and refusing to back them up. I believe when someone provides a solid relevant reliable source, the opponent of including the material has the burden to either 1) Show specifically how a quotation is taken out of context; or 2) Provide a contrary source. I don't believe a vague recollection has any place in wikipedia. In fact, it is even less reliable than original research! And I hope we can all agree that any unsourced claim as to fact or law made by anyone on wikipedia should be treated by all of us as a non-argument.

I believe all these non-arguments are why we're getting nowhere. There has yet to made a single, specific, sourced argument against this one sentence (or something similar) that I have been trying to include in this article for three months now:


 * In the six decades after Miller, American courts exclusively found that the Second Amendment's militia clause limited the right to keep and bear arms to service in a militia, until the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Emerson (2001) in a 2-1 decision suggested a qualified individual rights view that eventually became the law in Heller (2008).

Why is this obvious and unassailable truth so offensive to some editors here? Is it solely because of a contrary and inaccurate "vague recollection"? Or does there exist a reliably sourced factual or legal argument in opposition? Is it because people here and some scholars think these decisions were wrongly decided? (I don't argue whether the post-Miller/pre-Emerson decisions are "right or wrong", just as I don't argue whether Heller or McDonald or Miller or Cruikshank are "right or wrong." My point is the cases said what they said and that's an objective fact. You don't have to agree with the words someone says in order to concede that objectively, words in fact were spoken.) GreekParadise (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So what. You keep rehashing the same old. So I will repeat - all the cases that you want to cite would have the same outcome in the post Heller era because they were not individual/collective right issues but rather gun restriction issues. Therefore, they become trivia - not worthy to be in the lede. Post Heller you still must be over 18, without criminal history, background checks for handguns, etc. As much evidence as you want to present for a history of a collective view there is equal, perhaps greater, evidence for an individual viewpoint from the founding of the country. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the cases? Which ones have you read?GreekParadise (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this at User talk:GreekParadise as WP:Original research and Cherrypicking as well as Disruptive_editing  discussion is open at"Second Amendment to the Constitution". bringing it up here again is disruptive. J8079s (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of my sources have you read J8079s?GreekParadise (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A militia right IS an individual right. The militia is all military age males, regardless of membership in any organized group. This is by long tradition, multiple court rulings, and by explicit statue.


 * Regardless, the key fact that shows that your interpretation is incorrect is the Heller decision itself. Nowhere does it discuss overturning previous stare decisis. The question of individual vs collective was not directly addressed by any ruling prior. Several mentioned it. Several gave some (non-judicial) opinion one way or another, but nothing was actually decided.


 * Finally, even more regardless, whatever the judicial status was previously, it is irrefutable that the supreme court has ruled that it IS an individual right, which IS incorporated against the states. That is how it should be described in the lede. Debates, and arguments can be listed in a history section.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree Rtjoffe. It is extremely biased. Even my section header for this very section on this talk page "Should vague recollections trump reliable sources?" has been censored twice (!) because editors refuse to concede what I thought was obvious: that reliable sources trump vague recollections. Yet unless we can all agree on this very basic precept, this article -- and frankly the whole wikipedia experiment – fails. It is telling that editors who cannot dispute my sources censor my section title and edit my own words because they know they can't find a single contrary source on their own. How Orwellian! GreekParadise (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

protects vs concerns
Im not sure what the big debate is here. The protects language is widely used by reliable sources, and by major gun-rights organizations. If the amendment protects, it obviously concerns (as protects is a subset of concerns). Therefore this is not a debate of concerns vs protects.

So the real debate seems to be does it protect or not. We (wikipedia) describe the entire bill of rights as "these limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property", and the general concept of "Bills of rights" as " The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement". The ACLU says "the entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including..."

From the Second Amemndment Foundation Amicus Curae brief in Heller ". The language, grammar, and history of the Amendment show both that its protection is not limited to militia related activities, and that the protected right does extend to having arms for self defense against violent criminals"

NRA : On June 28, 2010--two years and two days after declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess handguns for self-defense--the Supreme Court of the United States declared just as clearly that the Second Amendment protects that right not just in Washington, D.C., and federal enclaves, but in every state, city and town in America. The decision is a great victory for gun owners--but also highlights the need for us to keep being politically active, now and forever.

Most importantly in Heller : "The second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes"

Beyond that, I don't see why protects is controversial. Clearly it does server that purpose (just like all the other amendments). The various laws that have been declared unconstitutional on the basis of one amendment or another are the direct action of that protection. the debate (from the gun-control crowd) would be how far that protection extends.

There is a valid argument if someone were to say that the bill of rights grants these rights, as then that is fundamentally changing the origin of the rights. But nobody here is making the "grant" argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed,". The language in the operative clause and in the drafts is plain, it protects or if we want to be precise, it, " prohibits infringement by the goverment on the people's right to keep and bear arms. "-Justanonymous (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit "concerns" vs. "protects" came up as a NPOV attempt to resolve an editorial dispute, and has been subsequently supported by different editors in different ways.


 * Here is the history of the edit:


 * GreekParadise disliked the first paragraph and quoted the 2nd Amendment directly in the first paragraph. Then, at 21:38, 9 March 2013‎ user SMP0328 removed the direct quote and replaced it with "protects," noting in the edit summary "Replaced redundant quote with a general description."


 * To pacify both parties, I suggested changing "protects" to "concerns" at 17:47, 11 March 2013‎ with the rationale stated in the edit summary: "wording tweak. text of amendment already present in article. whether by original intent or judicial precedent, the 2nd amendment is what it is today. perhaps saying "concerns" is better than the former "protects" as it is agnostic on how this came about".


 * As editors continued to work on the page, the edit was at some point removed when multiple edits were reverted. SMP0328 subsequently re-inserted "concerns" after reverts at 22:28, 11 March 2013‎ ("Replaced redundant quote with a neutral description") and at 18:53, 12 March 2013‎ ("Restored accidentally reverted edit"). On the talk page at 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC) user Grahamboat agreed that "Yes indeed, Concerns is defiantly more neutral than Protects".


 * The linguistic issue is this: "protects" implies a certain historical relationship between a right and the TEXT of the 2nd amendment that "concerns" does not.  "Concerns" is just as technically correct as "protects" but makes no implications as to whether the 2nd Amendment protections derive from the text of the amendment itself or from case law (given that the amendment does not "grant" individuals any rights specifically, but technically restricts the federal government).


 * On the talk page, SMP0328 qualified his or her support for "concerns" at (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), saying "To be clear, I support using both words." I understood that comment to mean, support for "concerns" in the first paragraph (with respect to the text of the amendment), AND "protects" in the third (with respect to the meaning of the text, as discussed in Heller).


 * I would also like to note that SMP0328 also offered a stronger wording at SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), that the 2nd Amendment "has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms". This stronger wording is not what I am pursuing.


 * I support some strategic ambiguity in the first paragraph, saying that the 2nd amendment "concerns" the right to bear arms, and clearly stating in the third that the individual right to bear arms is protected. Inijones (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a debate where we pacify a fringe element through verbal gymnastics and watering down of the bill of rights. The text is specific as are the supreme court rulings.  The second amendment does not "concern" the right to bear arms, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.  See Heller.  The language is plain.  The supreme court ruling is plain. The language protects the people by prohibiting the government from infringing. Look at the Bill of Rights wikipedia articles:
 * First Amendment - prohibits
 * Third Amendment - prohibits
 * Fouth Amendment - guards
 * Fifth Amendment - protects
 * Sixth Amendment - sets forth
 * Seventh Amendment - codifies
 * Eight Amendment - prohibits
 * No, to use the word concerns is a drastic watering down of what the Bill of Right amendments are intended to accomplish. The Founding Fathers could care less about writing a bill of rights that was just concerned with things, these were men of action and purpose, these were the most important and fundamental Rightsthat the people were to keep yes, the people - look at the wording of the fourth and fifth, these are about individuals not some collectivist revisioninst thinking!  They would never put anything into the Bill of Rights that wasn't intended to mean something pragmatic.  To be clear, these were the top 10 things that the Founding Fathers thought should be protected as Rights!  but the argument here is that somehow the second amendment (yes, the one right after the first amendment as in almost the most important position) only concerns the people keeping and bearing arms???? Garbage, utter garbage thinking.  Go back to, and repeat, sixth grade. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

complete agreement. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The above is an example of original research, matching the personal bias of the editor. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem with SaltyBoatr, you don't understand English or the policy....original research? Where?  I merely pointed out existing wording on no less than seven (7) out of ten (10) Wikipedia articles that deal with the ten Amendments to Bill of Rights and the editors there are consistently using the terms - protect, guard, prohibit.  Straight from our Heller article:
 * There is no original research Saltydog, In addition in the Heller finding found:
 * It's categorically unprofessional on your part to claim "original research" where non exists. I invite you to read the WP:OR policy, it starts with:
 * Obviously plenty of Reliable Sources exist and it doesn't take a genius to read the amendment since it was intended to be read by laypeople. I will thank you to use Webster's dictionary for definitions of words and the standard Wikipedia policies for what we are doing here.  There is no OR in my wording and I take grave exception at your misplaced verbal attacks insinuating original research from this editor.  To the contrary, you just don't like what the thing says but I really don't care about that.  The fact you don't like it doesn't mean you get to claim WP:OR violation or WP:RS violations.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's categorically unprofessional on your part to claim "original research" where non exists. I invite you to read the WP:OR policy, it starts with:
 * Obviously plenty of Reliable Sources exist and it doesn't take a genius to read the amendment since it was intended to be read by laypeople. I will thank you to use Webster's dictionary for definitions of words and the standard Wikipedia policies for what we are doing here.  There is no OR in my wording and I take grave exception at your misplaced verbal attacks insinuating original research from this editor.  To the contrary, you just don't like what the thing says but I really don't care about that.  The fact you don't like it doesn't mean you get to claim WP:OR violation or WP:RS violations.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously plenty of Reliable Sources exist and it doesn't take a genius to read the amendment since it was intended to be read by laypeople. I will thank you to use Webster's dictionary for definitions of words and the standard Wikipedia policies for what we are doing here.  There is no OR in my wording and I take grave exception at your misplaced verbal attacks insinuating original research from this editor.  To the contrary, you just don't like what the thing says but I really don't care about that.  The fact you don't like it doesn't mean you get to claim WP:OR violation or WP:RS violations.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Jusyanonymous,
 * When you say in your comment above (21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)) that editors supporting "concerns" over "protects" is a fringe element, that is POV value judgement.
 * When you say "The second amendment does not 'concern' the right to bear arms" that is linguistically inaccurate and probably reflects a bias for the reasons I have already identified, mainly, that both "protects" and "prohibits" can be considered subsets of "concerns."
 * When you say "The language is plain", that is inaccurate and POV, because many people think the language is plain that the 2nd amendment concerns militia, not an individual right to bear arms per se. Lawyers, scholars, judges, and people here have debated the meaning of the amendment's grammar and the various possible context of terms like "arms"
 * When you say, "No, to use the word concerns is a drastic watering down of what the Bill of Right amendments are intended to accomplish" that is POV. Some people view it not as a watering down, but as a more neutral corrective.  You are also making unsupported assumptions about what the founders "intended" with the grammar and terminology that has been debated and repeatedly interpreted by the courts because difficulties arose at other levels of government with the interpretation and application of the source text.
 * Your objection to my proposed change of "protects" to "concerns" does not address the linguistic reasoning, does not negate it, show problems with it, or demonstrate bias. It is not verbal gymnastics, it is a simple change of one word to another.
 * Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best venue for your personal views.Inijones (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, you're a biased editor injones. Why make your little argument here on the second amendment article? Why not on the First Amendment Article.  It's because you're a biased editor.  Sorry.  You're also fringe (yes that's my analysis of you, It's the way I see you) because you're not arguing rationally, you're arguing from emotion and trying to dissect my words and not very well.  I have a Supreme Court Ruling and interpretation, what do you have?  You have nothing.  Stop wasting my time and move on - respectfully.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)F


 * 1. You call me biased, but don't show how. I have shown how you are biased.
 * 2. You call me "fringe," but don't do anything to show how I'm "fringe" other that your own opinion, which is not encyclopedic content.
 * 3. The edit I am proposing has varying degrees of support from multiple editors, one of whom agreed that it is more neutral. Neutrality is a central tenet of WikiPedia, and if you disagree, you don't belong on wikipedia.
 * 4. You say you have a supreme court ruling and that I have nothing, but that is not true. I have a reasoned edit which does not conflict your supreme court ruling.  And, although you're not being specific about what supreme court ruling you "have," I will assume for the sake of discussion that you mean Heller.   If you think that every facet of the 2nd Amendment needs to be evaluated solely in terms of Heller, that's a bias. It's recent-ism, it makes value judgements about the importance of Heller, and it's a-historical, as such an exclusive reading would imply that the second amendment was incoherent before the Heller ruling.  Because Heller did not overturn Miller, Miller is the law too.  Miller is a Supreme Court case that affirms the "militia interpretation."  "Concerns" addresses both co-existent interpretaions, the "individual rights" and "collective." Inijones (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No you are obviously attempting to POV push and water down the wording of an Amendment to the constitution. You are not reasonable, you make emotional arguments without any substance backing your actions, just some poorly constructed words. There are multiple sound editors that oppose your little Cabal.  Stop wasting our time please so we can work.  I'll keep my own counsel on my editing of Wikipedia (which is to help keep articles NPOV per our policy).  You are POV pushing Injones.  Please stop.  -Justanonymous (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're still not demonstrating any problem with my reasoning, or showing any bias on my part. You are not showing what my POV is, other than that I want more neutrality (which you call "watering down").
 * Calling my edit "watering down the wording" is POV. Some people here think it is more neutral, a core tenet of wikipedia.  It is a broader term that encompasses "protects" whether that protection comes from founder intent or case law, and it encompasses "prohibits" which is in the text itself.Inijones (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * concerns is not more neutral than protects or prohibits. There is no difference in neutrality between the two words, you're choosing a word that dilutes the meaning of the amendment. You are redefining through word choice and sophistry.  Sorry, no.   Why are not you not making this same argumen on the other Amendment article pages?  Because you're biased against this amendment and it eats you up that it prohibits and restrains the government in a fashion that doesn't align with your mindset and ideology, you don't like the "right".  My contention is that concerns does not make the article more neutral, it makes the article less neutral.  It dilutes the meaning of the amendment.  You're not interested in neutrality abandon that cloak my friend, sorry.  it's pretty clear injones, you're here to drive an agenda.  Many see it here..-Justanonymous (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't read my post above, "History of the Edit".
 * The post identifies this edit as an attempt to resolve a dispute between two other other editors. "Prohibits" implies a set of historical relationships that "concerns" does not, and others agree with me.  Are you going to over-ride our voices?
 * I am making this argument here not because I am "biased" against this amendment, but because I was asked to come here, and I was trying to resolve an editorial dispute, I want neutrality, and I want accuracy.Inijones (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your logic goes against founders intent as interpreted by the SCOTUS. They use the word "protect" you know. See Gaijin42's post at the bottom.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Prohibits goes to the intent of the right which is written in plain english. Perhaps you did not read the article in question nor the sources.  What you are attempting to do is water down the article based on recent, 20th century regulations that have been placed on the amendment.  I don't see you looking much before Miller, You're focused on Miller as if that were the end all.  Read the intent of the founding fathers, several great texts there.  Read British common law as an antecedent.  Read what Madison, Jefferson etc were thinking.  No, you're watering down. It's plain.  Otherwise you'd be asking all of us to change prohibits to concerns for all the amendments. Which would truly be a big disagreement.  No, your intent is clear - your (and others) attempt to insert ambiguity is a serious POV push. Many agree with me as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're still not pointing out any problems with my edit or my reasoning, other than that it seems contrary to your opinion about founder intent. You're not providing sources, just pointing me towards general bodies of work.  British common law is not part of the second amendment.  And I'm not asking anybody to change anything in any other amendments, that's an inaccurate characterization of my position.Inijones (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not contrary to my interpretation. Your logic is contrary to SCOTUS interpretation!-Justanonymous (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is the final word on the meaning of the amendment. The have specifically ruled that the amendment does protect an individuals right to own firearms (using almost those exact words).. This WP:PRIMARY source is verified by innumerable WP:SECONDARY sources, including every major newspaper, the NRA, the ACLU,etc. There are questions as to how far that protection extends, and what exceptions to that protection may be allowable. This was pointed to by Heller directly, and we will find out the boundaries shortly as various gun control laws are passed and challenged. That the protection was not explicitly acknowledged in the past, and that there is controversy and debate in the past is all valid content for the article body. That some would like the protection to be different, or favor a different interpretation of the amendment (arguing that Heller was wrongly decided etc), or think that the amendment should be repealed etc, are all also valid topics, with the proper sourcing. but they should not be the lede. the lede describes the law, as is.

Lets look at a similarly controversial supreme court case, Roe_v._Wade. The current interpretation of the law, per the supreme court is the primary lede description. That there is controversy and prior laws and decisions is BRIEFLY mentioned, but virtually no detail is provided in the lede. (Row is somewhat more complex as part of it has been overturned, which is not the situation for Heller) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thinking on crosschecking with other articles like Roe_v._Wade Gaijin42! We're being consistent across our Amendment articles and also across our other similar topic matter articles - we should continue to be consistent on this article and we should not diverge because one or two editors don't like what the law says or what the Right is about.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Inijones - your own words betray you. You’re not seeking neutrality you’re seeking ambiguity - you’re not striving to inform you’re striving to confuse – what utter nonsense. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral can be ambiguous, they're not incompatible. You even agreed "concerns" is more "netural" on the talk page here 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC).  SMP0328 and GreekParadise agree too.  You're being evasive, or confusing my goal with my tactic. Inijones (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not ambiguous, we have a SCOTUS ruling here (We have a stronger legal interpretation here than we do in other Amendment articles where we use succinct language). There is no need and there is no place for ambiguity here.  We need precision and accuracy.  It protects the people (it prohibits the government). Thank you.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. SCOTUS has ruled, and specifically used the word protects. The ACLU uses the word protects. The NRA/SAF uses the word protects. forbes. The nytimes uses protects.(more than once!. Time uses the dreaded "Creates"!! On our article about Heller, "protects". It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to express a POV that is established in reliable WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. This satisfies that requirement far beyond any reasonable standard. It is up to YOU to show sources that would make "concerns" better.  It is not neutral, it is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is being used to encompass a POV which is contrary to SCOTUS and reliable sources. Even the dissenting opinion in Heller went with a protected right (although a more limited one) "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred"Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of compromise another proposal: Concerns says what 2A is about – IMHO rather loosely. Protects says what the 2A does. Perhaps we could reach compromise by stating what 2A means. All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were deemed to be fundamental, natural, and unalienable.


 * "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution recognizes a preexisting fundamental and unalienable [unchangeable] right for the Militia [States] and the People [individuals] to keep and bear arms [firearms] unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense." Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you will likely get objection from all sides on that. Clearly the right is not unalienable, as there are exceptions and limitations to it (according to SCOTUS). Via previous court rulings, we do get the pre-existing (particularly from Cruikshank), but is that sufficient sourcing? Perhaps if we attribute the statement more, it avoids some of these problems "The 2A has been recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting..." - that is somewhat more undeniable? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC
There's been some question above about the reliability of the Providence Foundation as a source on the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights.

After it started to get heated, everyone kind of backed off for a bit. I think we've all had time to collect ourselves, though, so I thought I'd open it back up and see what happens. Any additional input would be appreciated. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Just to be clear, the question here is whether the Providence Foundation is a reliable source of information about the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the question phrased here is both ambiguous (do you mean meeting wp:rs criteria, do you mean actually reliable, and do you mean so authoritative that their opinion on a broad topic can be stated as fact.) and also only one of the several questions blended into that discussion. The others included particular content questions. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC comment. Ugh. I came here from the RfC notice, and I'm not going to watch discussion after I comment here. I don't know what all the discussions have been, and I don't want to know. I'm going to confine myself to a very narrow question, one that I think Bdb484 has asked: whether or not the Providence Foundation website is a reliable source about "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". No, it is not a reliable source for that. Reliable sources would be academic historians writing about the Framers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC comment. Agree with Tryptofish. The Providence Foundation web site is not a reliable source for this aspect of topic. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, gang. There were obviously lots of other elements to the debate, but Tryptofish was able to narrow it down to the only matter that I'm requesting comment on here -- an assessment of whether it's appropriate to use Providence as it's being used in the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this RFC the page in question 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' is not a product of POV it is taken from United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings in “United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson.” . The full text is available at Findlaw and elsewhere. It was wrong to question the site rather than the page being used. As with all questionable sources we dont need it. J8079s (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to concur with the treatment by Tryptofish. Just looking at the mission statement of the Providence Foundation makes it quite clear that they are not undertaking to disinterestedly document or investigate the motives, principles, and beliefs of the framers of the US Constitution, but rather promote and support a Christian worldview.  From their website, the mission statement begins:"The Providence Foundation is a Christian educational organization whose mission is to train and network leaders to transform their culture for Christ, and to teach all citizens how to disciple nations."While the Providence Foundation is doubtless entitled to its own view and mission, this makes them clearly inappropriate as a reliable historical source.  They may indeed be a reliable source for their own POV, which is not really a fringe one, but certainly not as regards "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". siafu (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment Please format RfC as simple questions that don't require those engaging to read vast debates... If what's at stake here is Providence Foundation as WP:RS. Then, clearly, no, it's not. Not by a long way. It promotes an outright, declared POV. -- Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment Not reliable. Clear POV.GreekParadise (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment - Completely fails our standards as to reliable sourcing and our expectations as to neutral point-of-view. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment - Not reliable. The organization is "A Christian educational organization" and is steeped in contemporary partisan debate on this subject. Now, if this organization would publish articles and analyze religious influences of the framers of the Second Amendment - that would be a good contribution. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

missing comma
A comma is missing from the text of the second amendment. There should be a comma after "a well regulated militia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgolikov (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The text you are referring to apparently didn't have a comma. I don't have the cited book, but see this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A comma should be included, according to the text of the Bill of Rights on www.archives.gov. Seems legit to me, being the government and all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.155.197 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Full protection
I reverted the tags that had been added to the article. I also requested that the article be locked. That request has been granted. The article is fully protected for one week. Let's discuss on this talk page what should be in the Introduction, rather than treating the article as a battlefield. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The tag says it is not to be removed prior to the dispute being resolved. What gives you authority to remove disputed tags prior to a dispute being resolved? Readers of the article should know there's a controversy going on, rather than believe a single POV is a consensus choice. Please put the tags back up. Or tell me who gave you permission to remove them so I may address the issue formally with Wikipedia administrators. GreekParadise (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The POV tag does nothing to advance the discussion. It only puts a scarlet letter on the article. No matter what ends up being the consensus, there will be those that will feel that the article is POV. Rather than branding the article, let's just reach a consensus on what should be in the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We have tried for three months to reach a consensus. I have provided reliable sources including CRS, LOC, NYT, WP, and three judicial decisions to show there was no individual right and only a militia right in all judicial decisions between Miller (1939) and Emerson (2000).  After three months and an offer of $100, no one has disputed this with a single source, not even an unreliable blog entry. We have reached an impasse.  The decision to throw away all information from reliable sources that tell the history of the Second Amendment prior to 2000 without informing the reader that the article is one-sided does nothing to achieve consensus. It violates WP:recentism, WP:NOR, and WP:verifiability. It rewards people who respond to reliable sources with personal attacks and unconstrained reverting. It damages the reputation of Wikipedia. I maintain the reader has the right to know that the information in the article is one-sided and that objectively proved facts have been removed.  The purpose of the dispute tag is to let people know there is an on-going unresolved controversy.  Do you deny that there is one?  It is not supposed to be removed until the controversy is resolved.  If you have a wikipedia policy that lets you remove a dispute tag when there is a detailed on-going and unresolved dispute on a talk page, please direct me to that policy.  Otherwise, I respectfully request you replace the tags.GreekParadise (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If the tags are not replaced -- and no one addresses my (or Indijones' or SaltyBoatr's) arguments or provides a single contrary source to show that collective rights was not the law between 1939 and 2000, I will start a request for comment and then request formal mediation. Stop walking away from the reliable sources. Either admit they are right and you cannot dispute them or provide a single contrary source. Otherwise this dispute will never be resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You collectively have it backwards between 1939 and Heller, through using Russell's teapot type thinking. You are asserting a belief that is not consistent with history while demanding others prove your false assertion(s) wrong. This is because Heller was the first case in which the Supreme Court ever ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment.  That is precisely what "landmark case" means, incidentally. That Emerson in 2000 had also been ruled similarly to Heller does not mean anything about the proper interpretation between Miller in 1939 and Emerson in 2000, as an absence of rulings means only that it was not yet time for the Supreme Court to become involved.   Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My view is consistent with history. The 5-4 Heller decision was NOT the first Supreme Court Second Amendment Case. Miller was a landmark case that ruled on the Second Amendment as well. And Miller found (unanimously) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a particular banned firearm] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." What is the significance of Miller? According to Love v. Peppersack (1995), in the half century plus since Miller, "the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." The Love court found that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'" And there's also Cases, Tot, and Warin which agree with Miller and Love. How can you claim an "absence of rulings" when I've just given you four appellate court cases that support this contention? In fact, all of the lower courts that examined the case (and I've named four of them) consistently read Miller as conferring only a collective right until the Emerson case. How is my assertion false? No Russell's teapot here. My belief is not only consistent with history: it's cited repeatedly by the contemporaries themselves!GreekParadise (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations. However, there are also appellate rulings beside the ones you cherry-picked that do support an individual viewpoint.  For example, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people.  (When making statements under Free Speech, you don't need a Greek chorus making the statement to make it legal to be stated!)  Of course, you didn't cherry-pick this case which went in the opposite direction from what you falsely claim was the sole viewpoint.   Neither did you pick the others! No, it is clearly not consistent with history that a collective viewpoint was the sole view at the appellate level as claimed in your cherry-picked history. And, of course, without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The revert to the text favored by a pro-gun political bias, followed by a quick full protect request is a familiar tactic of the small group of pro-gun editors who have dominated this article for at least six years now. This is a serious editor bias problem, a violation of NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I resent and refute that remark. Lectonar (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. Salty needs to reacquaint himself with civility and AGF. Conspiracy theories are not going to get us to a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. The POV push by SaltyBoatr has gone on for over 7 years now, under several "handles", with multiple blocks on this very article!  It only makes editing more difficult for editors.  Yaf (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. Bad taste. Grahamboat (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice that I did not mention any names. It is very telling of guilt of bias which editors assumed I was speaking of them and claimed incivility.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where any of the complaints were based on you implying specific individuals. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this lock is a good idea. People are not engaging. Since being asked to come here, I feel like the intro has improved. There is a clear interest in continuing to work on the intro, but at this point, I have concerns that I would like to address, but people need to talk.

I have unanswered comments at:

Inijones (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC) to clarify terminology in response to GreekParadise: Heller did not overturn Miller, and added a new interpretation.

Inijones (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) -- Preserving the balance of text that had been reverted, after re-inserting an edit of mine that had been later modified, and asking for help re-inserting it with a balancing statement.

14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC) RE: normativity of terms like "generally accepted"

and

Inijones (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC) RE: unaddressed linguistic considerations around subtle differences in wording a sentence from the first paragraph.

And am happy to let the article sit for a minute.

Inijones (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that a small group of politically motivated editors dominate the point of view of this article. Policy here is that the balance of view should be neutral reflecting the sources, and not be dominated by the personal political persuasion of the the editors that chose to 'own' the article.  Collaboratively pushing out views seen in sourcing that don't match their personal politics.  Accusations pointed at me personally are a dodge and diversion of this greater policy violation issue.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I am as protecting admin included in your conspiracy theory.....would you please provide diffs which show my political motivation? If not, you should perhaps retract your accusation. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Salty, everyone here on both sides of the debate except for you has been commenting on and debating content. You have been the only one attacking and insulting the actual editors, by repetitively accusing them of acting here based on personal politics rather than based on trying to improve the article. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the person SaltyBoatr should be complaining about is not Lectonar but SMP0328. It is SMP0328 who decided to refuse to let readers of this article even know there was a dispute by removing dispute tags contrary to wikipedia policy and then rushing to Lectonar to protect the page (within nine minutes of his removal of the tags!) before the tags could be replaced. I understand the purpose of locking the page during an edit war, but locking it while hiding the controversy in order to trick readers into thinking a non-agreed-upon version is consensus is, I believe, not in good faith. I have asked SMP0328 and Lectonar to admit the truth to readers -- which is to simply to put back the disputed tags until the agreement is resolved, but they have refused. SMP0328 refuses to explain his reason, except his claim that even disputing the page -- which I and many others do -- gives it a "scarlet letter." Is SMP0328 against all dispute tags in wikipedia? And Lectonar is not involved and so will not address the question of when it is proper to remove a dispute tag.

So sadly, I have now learned a new aspect of Wiki-gaming which should be posted, I suppose, in the humor/bad faith section: it is a great strategy for POV-pushing and apparently a legitimately accepted loophole in wikipedia ethics: just get your version in the article, remove any indication of a dispute, and then rush to ask an Administrator to lock before anyone can revert. Clever, I suppose. But not ethical in my view. I realize some version has to be locked. But when there is an on-going and detailed dispute, why would anyone be opposed to letting readers know that a dispute is in progress? The tag specifically says it is not to be removed until the conflict is resolved. I believe this is because most readers do not go to the talk page. They assume an untagged article reflects a consensus view. I again urge SMP0328 to reconsider, at least on the tags alone. Otherwise, this serves as a sorry precedent for unscrupulous editors. Perhaps when seen in that vein, we can all agree to put up the dispute tags while this page is locked and actively debated. GreekParadise (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * reading through this there is consensus and the admin has been fair. multiple admins have been locking these gun related pages since sandy hook. sorry there is consensus, you just don like it and have been warring on here. Nowhere in the consensus policy does it read that GreekParadise has to like it. Take team time to post your logical rationale, discuss the article not the admin action. We're lucky he didn't block anyone directly which is warranted. Justanonymous (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * GreekParadise's comment is contrary to AGF, civility, and constitutes an unwarranted personal attack. Instead of attributing negative motives to fellow editors, he should try to work with other editors to reach a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * GreekParadise. There is a discussion below regarding a core point of what you have been advocating.   Why don't you participate instead of insulting other editors?    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am addressing the issue below. And I'm glad that finally, after three months, there is at least some actual discussion on the sources I have repeatedly raised rather than just peremptorily reverting everything I edit. My point is not that there is a disagreement. My point is I believe that removing a dispute tag that says it is not to be removed until the conflict is resolved is not proper wikipedia conduct. I'm not attacking an editor. I'm attacking conduct. And I'm respectfully asking permission to reinsert the tags while we seek formal dispute resolution. I was defending Lectonar because he is not involved. And I'm asking SMP0328 to show good faith by allowing the tags to be reinserted while the page is locked. If anyone has a wikipedia policy that says that it is proper to remove dispute tags in the middle of an on-going dispute and then lock the page so they cannot be reinserted, please show me that policy because I would like to review it. Otherwise, I have the right to ask SMP0328 to show good faith and replace the tags.GreekParadise (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected again....
....so, the full protection expired yesterday, and I can see progress in the attempt in finding consensus; I have given it another 3 days full protection, perhaps also to have the open request at DRN concluded. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The protection is tagged with pp-vandalism, but shouldn't it be pp-dispute? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of changing it and letting Lectonar know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to stop grinding on the lead
Trying to agree on the lead has led to pages of looping discussion on this talk page, dispute resolution and locking of the article. Time to try another approach. Once it is unlocked, how about we work on improving the body of the article? -—Kvng 16:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is supposed to summarize what's in the article anyway. I'm thinking that that CRS piece is a good source (when not mis-used by cherry picking and pulling things our of context)Maybe we could do some really nice work and absorb it and put in a paragraph or section in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This should not be up to a vote. The problem is that a group of editors with a certain personal political bias always vote for edits that match that personal political bias. The lead has been defended into a steady state which matches the personal political bias of the editors that show up here. This is improper systemic editor bias. The Wikipedia policy is that the neutral point of view should match the balance seen in reliable sourcing, not the balance of the personal opinions of the editors. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty, is it possible for an editor to disagree with you regarding what should be in the article without that editor having a "bias"? Why do you continue to accuse editors who disagree with you with having a "political bias" while claiming that you (and implicitly those editors who agree with you) have no bias and are simply trying to improve the article? Maybe all of the editors who have commented here are all acting in good faith. SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Answering your questions: Systemic editor bias is subconscious. The AGF policy should not prevent us from facing the hard reality that this article is a magnet for editors with strong political beliefs, and disproportionately those with a 'pro-gun' political persuasion have camped out here and 'own' this article. That is simple fact. It is perhaps impossible to eliminate this systemic editor bias. The solution, if it is possible, is to avoid 'voting' the neutrality balance point. The NPOV policy is that the various POVs must be included, in proportion to that seen in the reliable sourcing. I see very little discussion of that, and instead I see a group of editors resisting the minority editor viewpoint. When editors with 'pro-gun' political bias skew the balance point like this, the encyclopedia suffers. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully having multiple POV positions on the article just leads to edit warring - it happens all the time across Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and it describes things. Let's describe what the amendment is, and it's history. Let's be consistent with the other amendments as well and with the intent for the amendments (they weren't put in to the Constitution as nice-to-haves and no that is NOT my opinion nor does it constitute OR). And, let the POV people go and write their own articles elsewhere for magazines or books. This is not the place to have a big pro con filled with recentism and bias and a bunch of editors fighting over what the other editor wrote. Let's not do that. We can describe racism without giving the KKK a forum to expound their ideology. Let's not set bad precedents here. Let's describe the article and kick out the POV pushers (yes man of them masquerade under the banner of neutrality, common sense, and champions of the wiki). Some will not be happy until the second amendment is erased from the bill of rights, to them I say, don't edit here.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty, how do you know you are not biased if bias is subconscious? Your past comments suggest you believe "systemic editor bias" can come only from "pro-gun" editors. That seems to show a bias on your part. As I've said before, it's better to AGF than to accuse editors of bad faith (bias). SMP0328. (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Answering SMP0328's question. All people have bias, including me. I do not deny that, neither should anyone else, we all have bias. This article, for some reason, has a tendency to attract editors with 'pro-gun' bias more than editors with the opposite bias. (Why this occurs could be discussed, but that is not germane right now.) This imbalanced editor skew is merely an objective observation. The systemic bias occurs when neutrality decisions are put up to a vote of personal opinions. The policy at Wikipedia is that neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance seen in the reliable sourcing, not the popular vote of the editors. Observing this talk page, I see no discussion of the balance point seen in the reliable sourcing. I see mega-volumes of discussion of personal opinion. So, I am pointing out a problem. This article suffers from systemic editor bias. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I think in this article we may need to reach balance, rather than neutrality. Everyone who has a viewpoint on firearms is going to be biased toward that viewpoint. So we have to reach a balance of the competing viewpoints, rather than trying to make the article "neutral". I would have no objection to adding material about the pre-Heller history regarding the Second Amendment, as long as that material was balanced regarding competing viewpoints. Such new material should be its own section, so we don't end up with arguments over how the new material is affecting existing sections. Any one piece of the article may favor one viewpoint over another, but that can't be avoided. If we focus on overall balance, rather than whether the article is neutral, we should be able to reach consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the fundamental problem we are currently dealing with is essentially source selection/original research. People (myself included) who are relying on the text of court opinions, or historical commentaries are doing WP:OR interpreting them. Regarding secondary sources, there are multitudes enough to support every possible viewpoint. I also feel somewhat like we are playing Moving_the_goalposts or No_true_Scotsman, and Texas sharpshooter fallacy in trying to define questions and statements very narrowly in order to exclude contrary sources. This is a very controversial and complicated subject. We can detail the various viewpoints, and how the interpretation changed over time or location - but imo the main description needs to be about how the law/amendment is currently understood/enforced, and mention that there is still ongoing controversy. Trying to detail that controversy in the lede is a doomed effort. (One can legitimately claim that I am biased in this suggestion, in that the "current" understanding is more in line with my personal opinion than previous understandings - but I have yet to find a good argument/policy that says we should describe laws as they used to be enforced as.)Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless I am mistaking SMP0328, when he speaks of 'balanced regarding competing viewpoints' by consensus, that is the actual problem of which I am speaking. The policy at Wikipedia is that the balance point isn't up to a vote/consensus. The policy actually reads: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."  Here, I see zero discussion of 'prevalence in reliable sources' and tons of discussion of prevalence among editors (which you call consensus).  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You’ve managed cherry-pick WP:DUE leaving out “Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute...aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.” No one is saying individual/collective right disputes do not belong in the lede: but the way GP and others want to wrongly spin the issue implying a dominance of the collective right only view. A definite mischaracterization that does not belong in the lede. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not speaking of a 'tiny minority' viewpoint in the reliable sources, but rather a 'tiny minority' among the personal opinion of editors here. Even the SCOTUS split 5:4 in Heller about viewpoint.  (Four favored collective, and five identified as an individual right being added to the collective right.)   And, vast numbers of reliable sources describe the 'collective viewpoint' as being the dominate viewpoint over the entire 2A history prior to 2008.  Recently an 'limited individual' component of the 2A has also been identified.  This newly identified right in no way negates the long standing collective component of the right.  But rather the 'individual component' is added to the long standing 'collective right'.


 * Except, among the personal political opinions of editors here, a strong focus on "Individual gun rights" dominates. Too often, the editors argue over whether viewpoint is right.  I see zero argument over which viewpoints are seen in reliable sources.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

section break

 * I agree the body needs a lot of work. IMHO it is way too long – perhaps an innate property of Wikipedia where editors keep adding “good stuff” and we windup with an article no one wants to read. It would be a daunting task to cull it down. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Everybody has a bias and everybody who edits Wikipedia has to care enough to write a good article about something. If I'm writing about purple daisies it's because I care about purple daisies and telling the world about them. That doesn't mean that I get to label them "orange" or to call them the "prettiest in the world." We have to get past the whole bias thing. Everybody has a biased (Saltyboater is biased as is Justanonymous). That doesn't mean we can't write an NPOV article.  The frustrating thing here is that people are trying to redefine common words.  I'm sorry, you don't get to say "the people" means "the government" or "the states" - NO!  The document is plain language. and Purple Daisies are not Orange!  You also don't get to be inconsistent.  We have multiple Amendments with articles here and we have to be consistent in the ledes.  The Second prohibits the government from infringing on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms - it protects the inalienable right!!!  It's about as plain as daylight and the SCOTUS Agrees! (but Saltyboater doesn't like it?  I DON'T CARE much!!  I also can't broadcast on any frequency I want because we have to regulate a finite EM spectrum....but that's doesn't mean that my first amendment is now somehow eroded and now I must relable the article on wikipedia to read that the first amendment "concerns" freedom of speech vs protecting freedom of speech by prohibiing the government from taking certain actions!)  This is a joke argument from the collective revisionist biased editors.  Move on. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be fairly broad agreement that there is work to be done in the body. It may be daunting work but in doing it we are likely to learn more about the amendment and the sources supporting the article. That would be a good thing. I don't think it would be productive to work on the lead until the dispute resolution thing runs its course. Can we agree to leave it alone for now and can we get the article unprotected to work on the body? This would be a step forward. -—Kvng 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The body can always be improved. There is some very good material and context there that cannot be found anywhere, without expending time researching, so while I'm always for improving an article, I'm not for "improvements" that are revisionist in nature that would remove some of the good material present - such as (but not limited to) the various versions that the Founding Fathers went through, variations in state constitutions etc.  That stuff is invaluable from a research standpoing and very hard to consolidate once it's lost.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to my describing the 60 years between Miller and Heller in the body of the article based on the CRS, LOC, WP, NYT, Miller, lower case law, and other sources I have provided here?GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do.


 * Miller is ambiguous. It can be read to support both the collective and individual rights. To define its meaning is WP:OR
 * I want to quote it verbatim. Why is that wrong? By this logic, no one can ever cite any case ever.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * McClurg, p. 139. "But when all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh describes Miller as 'deliciously and usefully ambiguous' in an article about using the Second Amendment as a teaching tool in constitutional law. That is probably the most accurate statement that can be made about the case
 * One view of one pro-gun professor writing decades after the fact is not a reliable source, and far less reliable than the actual cases quoted verbatim or, for that matter, the contemporaneous sources such as every single law review article from 1912 to 1959 on the Second Amendment. But if you really like law professors, I can cite you several who argue there was no ambiguity in Miller at all. Let's just cite Miller, quote it verbatim, and if you want a for/against on its interpretations, I'm fine with that. It's probably best in a section comparing the militia theory with the individual theory. GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf
 * Many people did interpret it to mean collective. Thats fine and we can discuss those opinions. We can also discuss that lower courts often ruled under that interpretation.
 * Actually ALL courts did, but that's all I've asked for, to quote them. I'm glad we agree. You quote your cases (if you can find any) and I'll quote mine.  The more sources the merrier!  Let's you and I both put in sources.  I have fifteen sources I have quoted and I hope you've read them. They explain the legal and scholarly consensus throughout the twentieth century that the Second Amendment's militia clause limited its scope to a militia.  What are your sources?GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We should similarly discuss the instances where it was interpreted to be an individual right.
 * Haven't found one. Have you? All my sources say not a single case rejected the militia theory or found the individual theory in a Second Amendment case in the entirety of the twentieth century. Can you find one?GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Its was authoritatively NOT a complete examination of the issue, and did not directly address the nature of the right.
 * Have you read it? Every court in the nation found it did exactly that for sixty plus years thereafter. If you disagree with these court decisions, you should find a source that also disagrees and list that reliable source in a section in the article on those that disagree with Miller.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You consistently skip addressing the argument that a militia right can easily be read as an individual right, since everyone, by tradition, by statute, and by judge (including Miller) agrees that everyone (all adult males anyway) is a member of the unorganized militia. The miller decision repeatedly uses terms such as "every citizen", "all able bodied men", etc.
 * The point is they have to be connected to service in a militia. Miller had a gun, but was not in a militia.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Most importantly "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
 * Capable of. not actually involved in, not organized in, etc.
 * From Presser "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
 * Presser makes my point. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to keep and bear arms for service in militia, including the United States militia.  And states cannot deprive people of arms they need to serve in the (then-existing) United States militia, what today would be called an army. That's still true today. A state cannot ban someone in the US Army from owning a weapon.  But have you read the Presser case?  Presser indeed had arms but he served in a "private militia" that was not authorized by the USA or any state.  And he was criminally charged (indicted) for doing so! The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.  That means that he did not have an individual right to bear arms outside a well regulated (i.e. state or federal) militia.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Cruikshank - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
 * As I'm sure you know, this was the case that said the Second Amendment restricted the federal governments and not the states. Overruled by McDonald in 2010.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Cooley, 1880 - It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
 * Interesting. Not a case of course but an 1880 treatise. He concludes by saying "The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited." Sure sounds like denial of an individual right. But sure, people could bear arms given their likelihood to be called up for service in a militia. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are trying to cheat in your argument, by narrowly defining the evidence which is valid "Only cases after miller, but before heller". If Miller wipes out everything before it, Heller does the same to miller. If it does not, then we need to look at the entire body of law and tradition.
 * My point is focused on the twentieth century. You're probably aware there were extremely few cases -- and no federal cases -- on the militia issue in the nineteenth century. But let's put the entire history in, the nineteenth century as well. My sources say that a federal court never struck down a statute as contrary to the Second Amendment until Heller, but there were some state cases in the early nineteenth century.  Fine, mention them. I'm all for inclusion of reliable facts. What I protest is exclusion of reliable relevant facts.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I likewise object to a one-sided false history spanning 1939-2000 being synthesized into the article. The reason is that there are several cases that support an individual rights viewpoint, instead of a collective rights viewpoint, dating from between 1939 and 2000, that GreekParadise has chosen to ignore. As noted above, Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations in 1939.  As has been noted previously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people.  Without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time. There are numerous indications, though, Verdugo-Urquirdez being just one of these, that indicate that the Supreme Court always held an individual viewpoint. Certiori is not granted by the Supreme Court until an issue is "ripe".  It is just spin trying to assign this period of time to a collective rights only framework, in the absence of any direct Supreme Court rulings, and with numerous cites available that clearly show that the individual rights viewpoint was being maintained. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to respond. None of these were even Second Amendment cases and definitely did not address the militia clause.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to a one-sided false history from 1939-2000. I have given you eleven federal cases with a militia point of view, one from each circuit.  There are many more in that time period.  You have not given me ONE. NOT ONE, that disagrees.  Verdugo was not a Second Amendment case. I dare you, defy you, challenge you, entreat you to read my sources. Miguel.  READ THE CASES. The only reason you REFUSE to read them is because you know I'm right!!!  Admit it.  You haven't read a single case I've supplied.  Not a single source.  You willfully believe in a falsity.  And you let your willful false beliefs trump my reliable sources.  Can your vague recollections trump my reliable sources?  THE ANSWER IS NO!!!!  Until you read my sources, you have no right comment on them. Period.  You are exactly what is wrong with wikipedia.  You MUST allow reliable sources in an encyclopedia to trump your personal prejudice or you have no place in wikipedia.  Read my sources. Or leave.GreekParadise (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read Verdugo. Have you? You should read all eleven cases I cited but I know you haven't read any of them. Have you? So I DARE you to read one I just randomly picked out, Hale from the conservative 8th Circuit. Dare you. Here it is: http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/978f2d1016.html  Until you know what the hell you are talking about, you have no right to comment here. It's like complaining about someone trying to present a "one-sided false history that American once had slavery exists when you know for a fact America never had slavery." There is an objective truth outside your mind, Miguel. It exists. Review the historical record.GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The personal attacks need to stop, GreekParadise. Likewise, all your attempts to drive editors away from Wikipedia; these need to stop as well, GreekParadise.  Meanwhile, There are numerous cases that support an individual rights viewpoint of the Second Amendment that were litigated between 1939 and 2000, contrary to just your cherry-picked cases and sources.  Verdugo is just one, as I mentioned before, and, in it, the Supreme Court ruled that "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are clearly meant as individuals, consistent with the other amendments where "the people" are also mentioned, with the same meaning.  Another case supportive of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment from this same 1939 to 2000 timeframe is Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950).  In this case, the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” Again, the Supreme Court clearly held the Second Amendment to be protecting individual rights in this 1950 case. As I have said previously, It is wrong to synthesize and push a one-sided POV history in this Article with your cherry-picked references that all go with the collective interpretation as you insist on doing, when there are numerous cases where an individual rights, not a collective rights, argument was held by the courts in reference to the Second Amendment.  Your attempt to twist actual history, in Proclaiming a sole "collective rights" set of rulings between 1939 and 2000, is counter to what the verifiable sources indicate. There was a mix of opinions evident in this period. It is the reason that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert for as long as it did, awaiting until the matter was "ripe".  As for the hostile editing environment you have created, this is making it difficult for editors to discuss appropriate sources for inclusion in this article. A fundamental Wikipedia policy is to Assume Good Faith, and I don't sense that you wish to adhere to this philosophy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. So you're admitting you haven't read my cases and have no Second Amendment cases of your own? That's my point.  Johnson is a Fifth Amendment case.  You say so yourself. More importantly I've read it.  It's about the extra-territorial application of the Bill of Rights and has nothing whatsoever to do with the limitations of the militia clause and lack thereof.  I have read Johnson and all my cases, but I'm starting to question whether you've read any of them.  Please specify which cases you have read -- or which scholarly articles -- or what your sources are so we can discuss them.  To make all kinds of accusations without sources is exceedingly unhelpful.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And Gajin: what one person wrote about Miller is not the issue. There are people who think the earth is flat. Read the case-law. I'm not even saying these cases were right. What I am saying is they existed! Have you read them? Do you deny their existence?GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The cases are ambiguous and generally do not directly address the topic, and which you are using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to interpret. I have read several of them, as commented in an above section. There are many cases which say that "such and such a regulation is not an interference with a well regulated militia". That does not have any significance on individual vs collective rights. As stated many times, by statute, by judge (including in Miller), by tradition, by notable commentary, EVERYONE is a member of the militia. Heller did not use the words overturn, overrule, vitiate, etc which would indicate a reversal of earlier rulings. Because those earlier rulings did not directly address the question. They in fact specifically say that they did NOT overturn anything. Earlier interpretations to the contrary are historically interesting, and noteworthy, but by definition incorrect. Lower court rulings are washed away by the higher court. They have zero significance except as historical artifacts. "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." Gaijin42 (talk)


 * I object for all the reasons stated above – nothing new here; just another rehash. Saying the same thing in ten thousand words hasn’t garnered any new support. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, which case do you claim is ambiguous? You say you've read a number of them. Which one? And are you aware of Lewis v. United States (1980) where the United States Supreme Court, citing Miller found "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia' "
 * This thread has been copy pasted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Please continue there if you have more to say
 * I don't think this copy pasting is appropriate, according to the rules of the noticeboard. We are supposed to continue on the talk page. The only issue for the noticeboard is whether you have a right to remove what you concede are authoritative, relevant, accurate, reliable sources.  I contend you are not.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

'''I'll make every one here a deal. Let me cite my sources and you can cite yours. We'll put the information from the sources in the text, we'll make sure nothing's taken out of context, and we'll put the sources in the footnotes. Quotes from cases can be verbatim. Quotes from newspaper articles will have the source available for people to evaluate (but should be news articles rather than op-eds). Quotes from single subjective individuals or law journal articles are more dangerous and I'm inclined to keep them out, but if we agree to include them (on both sides), we name the individual -- and their affiliation -- in the article, preferably in sections entitled "The Militia View" and "The Individual View" where we can collate the arguments of proponents of each view and let both views have their space in the article. What's wrong with that? I have never disputed other editors' rights to include other reliable sources in this article. I have merely protested the summary reversions every time I try to include what everyone agrees are reliable relevant articles on my part.'''GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You are incorrect that the cases are the ultimate authority (as far as wikipedia is concerned). Those are WP:PRIMARY which are LESS reliable (for wikipedia purposes) than WP:SECONDARY. I personally agree with you on relying on the cases, EXCEPT
 * 2) You are doing more than quoting the cases, you are interpreting what the case/quote means.
 * 3) In particular, you are translating "relationship to a militia" to mean "militia-only collective right".
 * 4) For your specific quote above the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia', which you claim unambiguously refutes an individual right, and mandates a collective right, there is obviously at least one reliable opinion that disagrees on that statement means. Heller.
 * 5)  None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretationn. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
 * 6) Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.
 * 7) As SCOTUS is the highest authority, and this interpretation has been reported in many reliable secondary sources, alternative interpretations are simply WRONG (until such time if and when SCOTUS overturns itself)
 * 8) Who else agrees that miller doesn't say what you say it says? Hugo Black, one of the justices who decided Miller "Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute." - only a discussion of the arms covered by the right, not of who the right belonged to.
 * 9) Another case, Lewis v US "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" - once again, miller restricts the right based on the type of weapon, and says nothing about to who the right applies
 * 10) Hale, one of the cases you seem to be relying on :
 * 11) "Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is [Page 24] 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. Id. at 1020" - clearly it has not previously been ruled to be a collective right if this is worded in this manner.
 * 12) and "The Second Amendment prevented federal laws that would infringe upon the possession of arms by individuals and thus render the state militias impotent."
 * 13) Johnson v Eisentrager the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”
 * 14) Now, I think you will agree that it is completely unambiguous that Heller does rule the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right, but a not-unlimited one per "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."and  "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
 * 15) Now, note this earily similar wording from a pre-emerson case US v SWINTON, cited as well in  GILBERT v HIGGINS "there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm".
 * 16) Not there is no individual right. Not there is only a collective right. "no absolute right". same as in Heller.
 * 17) Gilbert also says " The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all Americans the right "to keep and bear arms" and further provides that this right shall not be infringed."
 * 18) I admit, I am reading some spin into the cases, but no more than you are into the militia readings. The point is it is not a "collective-only" set of rulings, particularly when your cases don't actually use the word "collective" (3 exceptions), and don't define what "related to a militia" means.
 * 19) You were arguing Verdugo before. "The people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community"
 * 20) Surely it is not your argument that the 1st or 4th amendment are collective rights only?


 * GreekParadise: To be clear – you have not achieved a consensus to make the changes you suggested. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * agree with Grahamboat and with Gaijin42s excellent summary. GreekParadise, you do not have consensus to make your changes, they amount to WP:SYNTH.-Justanonymous (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. I see a vote on politics here and 'owning' the article. I strongly disagree about claims of consensus. Shouting down and wearing down the opposition is not how consensus building works. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty, please stop accusing editors of bias. They have their opinions as to what should be in the article, as do you. If they are biased, then so are you. IMO, nobody's biased; we simply are trying to reach consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is time for the discussion on GreekParadise’s edit requests to end.


 * After a week of intensive (100,000 bytes) discussion on GreekParadise’s suggested changes to the lede there is no consensus. I thought we came close at GreekParadise (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 and GreekParadise (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2013 and IMHO the best balance at Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2013. Now that we are still at NO CONSENSUS it is time to stop discussing this issue. Any further discussion would be WP:Disrupttive and should be dealt with accordingly. I do not have high hopes for further enlightenment at DRN. GreekParadise wants everyone to study a bunch of cases which sounds WP:OR to me. It seems a tragedy to waste all the hard work but:If editors can’t agree on the PROTECTED version or Miguel 16:52, 15 March 2013 then according to WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I understand it, we fallback to the [] version prior to the dispute.


 * There is also NO CONSENSUS on changing the word PROTECT to CONCERN. That fact should end further discussion on this issue. There can be further discussion on another word choice i.e. codifies, guards sets forth, etc.


 * There seems to be a consensus on adding a statement about individual/collective right history in the lede. To be proportional to the body, this statement needs to be brief. IMHO Miguel Escopeta 16:52, 15 March 2013 says it best “From Miller in 1939 until Emerson in 2000, lower courts followed a mix of collective rights and individual rights viewpoints.” Can we agree on that? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That statement should come just before the Introduction refers to Heller and McDonald. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guide lines
Talk page guidelines I picked the one this page needs the most Please help and lets move on. J8079s (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
 * Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
 * Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages (or, more specifically, Indentation) to clearly indicate to whom you are replying, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points
 * Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.
 * Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, is strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.
 * Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously,
 * good refresher at this point, and words to live by, thank you much.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Breyer's dissent
✅ What we have: ''Justice Breyer, in his own dissent and speaking only for himself, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an 'individual' right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred" What we need (From "Heller"): Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of the majority, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
 * This is not controversial. J8079s (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dissents have no legal authority, so I'm not sure that either quote is particularly useful. The first quote indicates that (in Breyer's estimation) the entire court agrees that the right is individual. Nothing contradicts that, but it is just the opinion of Breyer. (However this does seem more relevant to me since this was the "landmark" holding of the overall case). The second quote says that the right is not unlimited. The majority opinion also states that, so that part is not particularly useful/important. the second quote goes on to say that the handgun ban/lock would be permissible - this is directly contradicted by the majority opinion, and it is the majority opinion that matters. the opinion of the dissenting judges is irrelevant until such time as the court makeup changes to put them into the majority during a time they want to overturn stare decisis. Has that dissent been found to be particularly notable by reliable sources? Are we quoting dissents throughout the rest of the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear the first is all ready in the article. It is wrong I would tag it if I thought any one would want to keep it. The second quote is true statement from the source. This is not about the lede just a correction of a bad edit in the body. J8079s (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Still confused. I realize we are discussing the body. The Breyer dissent is a fairly verbatim quote "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.". His statement is reinforced by the Stevens dissent, which you partially quoted, which also said "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an Individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right" - So we effectively have a unanimous opinion that it is an individual right.


 * The other quote from the Stevens dissent is directly contradicted by the majority opinion, and carries no weight, so I am unsure as to what value it provides, other than documentation that that portion of the majority opinion was not unanimous? Has that portion of the dissent been commented on or quoted by notable people or reliable sources? What is the rationale for inclusion? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did Breyer make two dissents? The one used as a reference does not include my quote, but this other one does? http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the question is. If it whether to cover the dissent, being the big decision, I think that some coverage of the dissent is in order for the body of the article but no the lead. And that is the current state of the article.  Or is the question regarding the particulars of the coverage?  North8000 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The error is that Breyer's dissent is also signed by the three other justices I have bolded the change. J8079s (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah! You are quite correct then. the "speaking only for himself" part should be removed. (I swear I saw a copy of the dissent that did not list any joins! But on review I stand corrected!) Is that the extent of your suggested edit? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I used Wikipedia my source for starting from the premise of the majority (a big no-no) I see that is not entirely accurate. It should be fixed at Heller. J8079s (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

new lede
I have read the talk above and every source I could find this is what I came up with: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view". Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald. The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.

I have a copy of this at User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd with sources and will update as we go at User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd
 * 1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights
 * 2) The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state.
 * 3) The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.
 * 4) Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years.
 * 5) While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms.
 * 6) Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view"
 * 7) Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald
 * 8) The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.

Talking points line by line:


 * 1) Full text because its short
 * 2) explanation of the components of the right, with out this the "debate" is irrational
 * 3) protects,concerns I went with recognizes as a compromise.
 * 4) There are not many and this is what my sources say I could go with "Miller"
 * 5) The "States rights" theory is dead, not surprising it was never strong. Obituary at sandbox.
 * 6) The "Standard view" is in every source even in rebuttal. This will necessitate a short section on the historiography of the standard view
 * 7) This is probably to short and should be linked
 * 8) "Sophisticated Collective" could be moved might be extinct, check "McDonald"

Talking points in general:


 * 1) WP:NPOV and WP:MOS I have included the major views Will need to add short section for "States right view" and "Standard view"
 * 2) WP:NPOV I have avoided using "collective right" "militia" "Individual right" as there is not a one to one correspondence to "Standard view, "States right, and "Sophisticated Right"
 * 3) I have made no attempt to include "The Bunker Guys" (Too fringe) no the view that "The Court is wrong" (not found in any source) nor the 9th amnd. theory of incorporation (not enough coverage for this page)
 * 4) Anything I didn't think of

sources
 * SECOND AMENDMENT, BEARING ARMS CRS-LOC

responding
 * Please read before responding
 * I am not call for a point by point response
 * I may be raising too many points for ease of response
 * If you dont like thats ok I'm not going to spam it all over thank for reading J8079s (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your hard, well sourced suggestion. Many editors seem to object to quoting the full text, but as you point out it is short – I have no problem using it. I think most will agree with using “recognizes”. Typo with "disent" and duplicate "the". I need a little more time to fully digest it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the tone to be biased toward one interpretation. First, all rights in the bill of rights protected existing rights and that is clear in the wording of the amendment ("shall not be infringed").  But the actual origin of the right is disputed.  There is a dispute about whether the English Bill of Rights protected or created the right.  It is also not clear the right was based on natural law, because the authors of the 1689 bill said they were upholding rights derived from tradition, that is the sovereign had long allowed the right and therefore could not revoke it, just as if one allows a right of way through one's property one cannot revoke it.  Posse comitatus is of course an obligation not a right, so it makes no sense to say that the amendment protects it.  Saying that the court's decision reflects the "standard view" is questionable.  Do scholars generally accept that?  And throwing in "States Rights" seems to unfairly associate one side of the dispute with segregation.  TFD (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "other side" in this is not the alternative reading. Its that its a "limited"  "Regulated"  "Restricted" right. I "bolded" protected. Your objections are the very reason I went with recognized and "civic duty". The origin of the right is dealt with in the body.  The Courts endorsement is widely documented. The "States right" or "national guard" theory is dead it is so dead that we could leave it out of the lead all together, you must be old like me to remember the racism of "States Rights", we could add "National Guard" or leave it for the body. J8079s (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work on addressing the core issue, but IMHO the wording seems to do only that. IMO the lead needs to be more than that, it needs to be an introduction and summary. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Be Bold but not reckless use the talk page at my sandbox if you like User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd J8079s (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the rewrite is good but I'm not sure it adds anything and I worry about the ambiguity of this sentences, "Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. " Here is an example from Dred Scott v. Sandford where a SCOTUS compares and contrasts the rights of slaves vs the rights of citizens and addresses the right of citizens to bear arms (please excuse me bringing up such a polarizing figure like Chief Justice Taney, I mean no disrespect to my fellow citizens who happen to be black, but the quote clearly articulates the view of the court regarding the second amendment right and citizens), emphasis mine:
 * Very clearly here you have Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney discussing the Bill of Rights and the court's understanding that citizens have a right to not only keep but to carry arms wherever they go! His words were part of the ruling as I understand. It's only been in the 20th century that there has been clouding of this right by interested parties to inject phrases like collective and the so called sophisticated collective rights.  If we pore over case law, which I'm not sure we've done here enough to say that the second amendment has not been treated.  Certainly a Supreme Court Chief Justice is a scholar, even a controversial one, and him making an analysis of the Second Amendment in relation to the Bill of Rights constitutes at a minimum attention.  So based on that, I think what is in the lede now is fine. Good effort though and attempt at quelling some parties who only want to present their view of history but that's just revisionism.  I think we have to tread very carefully here.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So my argument with what I present above is that I hold the opposite argument. There hasn't been long-standing ambiguity with respect to collective vs a personal right.  When settlers walked west, it was completely 100% understood that you strapped a revolver to your side and took a good rifle -- you were considered insane if you didn't. My contention is that it has only been fairly recently in our history that certain groups have given birth to terms like "sophisticated collective" (a right to keep and bear arms is somehow devolved from the feds to the states, abhorrent top-down thinking btw ....devolvement is anathema to the bottom-up liberty we practice.  Here the people grant government power!) and words like "collective."....no, this mindset is new.  It's true that it wasn't settled law until recently but it wasn't settled law because nobody argued about it! Not because there was ambiguity.  If there had been a big fight about what the Second Amendment meant in 1822 surely, we'd see a bunch of case law and rulings in that era about precisely that point.  With the Taney court, we have a complete and utter agreement in the era that citizens could not ownly keep but carry arms anywhere they went which makes perfect sense because the right of self-defense should extend to wherever I can legally be (otherwise, they would have argued about it right and the people would have argued about it too?!).  So, simple logic means that Heller and Mcdonald became settled law recently because it has only been in recent history that people have taken up a revisionist collective view to the second amendment.  Just like we see a lot of case law with the Taney Court regarding slavery and the rights of the individual - it's what they were fighting about back then (keeping and carrying arms wherever you went was a non-issue - it was what sensible intelligent people did). The revisionists here would have us believe that the second amendment was always a collective right but Taney clearly articulates it as an individual right of the citizenry, how else to interpret his words?  We need to make sure we keep the right context here and make sure that we don't accidentally inject a bias towards ambiguity just because it wasn't settled law until recently and because a group of people want us too.  It's easy to inject relativist meaning in good faith - we must resist bias being injected in that fashion too. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree it's not none It's just not very much. Please remember it's not our opinions that count while you are correct you need a source not an arguement As this thread has too many points I'm going to drop most of them (for new sections)
 * I do agree it's not none It's just not very much. Please remember it's not our opinions that count while you are correct you need a source not an arguement As this thread has too many points I'm going to drop most of them (for new sections)

I am going to ask that this the first paragraph: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. Feed back on this paragraph has been positive,I will do more work on the rest J8079s (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That presupposes that there is a natural law, which is a matter of opinion, and civic duties are not rights. Or did you mean common law?  RE: Dred Scott.  Comments by a judge that are not critical to the judgment have limited value and anyway we would need a secondary source to interpret it.  Also, most people would not know what posse comitatus means.  TFD (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Common law presupposes Natural law  Every commentary on Common law explains self-defense as a Natural law right. Second point "Posse' is linked for just that reason. Third point belongs in the thread above.J8079s (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Natural Law as opinion? I guess you're of the mind TFD that slavery is ok then? I mean, equality of all is squarely out of natural law and folded into common law. Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and studied their underpinnings?  I guess we could degenerate here and argue about the divine right of kings too but how about if we just stay on topic and talk about the Second Amendment here as it relates to American case law, as the framers saw it, and its roots in relation to this article? I mean, unless you have a bunch of case law which states that the US Constitution and the Declaration are based on a false premise.  To be clear these weren't comments by "a judge," these were comments by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in the concurring opinion on a very important case regarding citizenship and the rights of citizens where he articulated the right to not only keep but to carry arms around (and he meant the prevalent firearms of the day).  America went to war in part over this ruling to correct a gross inequity in "natural law" to recognize that all men (and later we fixed it to all people) are equal.  The main point is that the second amendment rights were being discussed, it's just that they were taken for granted.  I agree that this is not about opinion, it's about facts.  My caution is that the other side of the argument regarding the lack of case law can be interpretted not because someone saw some collective right but rather because everyone took for granted that the right to bear and carry arms around was an inanienable individual rights.  -Justanonymous (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again you are correct but please respond with sources not arguments. I realize that sources are not traditional on this page but thats the wikipedia way. These are sources that say the same thing    and every other source I could find 967 altogether


 * None of the sources provided say that common law presupposes natural law. Natural law theories were developed hundreds of years after common law arose.  Justanonymous's "I guess you're of the mind TFD that slavery is ok then...Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution" is bizarre.  Slavery was justified under natural law and continued for almost a century after independence although it was inconsistent with common law.  (See Somersett's Case 1772)  TFD (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you can justify anything.....it's a sophists skill. That doesn't mean it's just.  Let's stay on topic, not interested in a philosophy argument.  Wp:forum violation.  What is your point regarding improving the article?Justanonymous (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that your comments about the amendment that you wish to put in the lead are wrong and not supported by sources. You are the one who brought up slavery.  TFD (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not looking for what is supported, I am looking exactly what the sources say and natural right is the most common construction. Was this your point? This is getting chatty. lets stay on point J8079s (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The approach taken when writing the bill of rights is described in Madison Vs. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law and the United States, pp. 73 ff. They were divided between natural law and positive law groups. The first group believed that the bill protected inalienable rights while the second group believed that it protected rights that had become part of the law. The distinction is important because if they protected positive rights, then that supports an originalist position where judges would determine what the existing law was. If they protect natural rights then judges must go beyond that and may determine for example that abortion is lawful even though the authors of the bill of rights did not know that. That is my understanding from what I have read and if you disagree could you please refer me to a source.

Also there is a substantial opinion, for example in the dissenting opinion in DC v Heller, that the right does not derive from the right to self-defense. The most we could say is that the court has interpreted it that way.

TFD (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tfd, Wasn't the original question here a basic one of lead formatting? Don't delve off into meandering points. The notion that the "collectivist" (not really a term until the late 70s, if that early) view of "bear arms" provisions was somehow untouched for 80 years is patently incorrect. If you're diving back into a case about the first U.S. Bank then you're clearly not on topic. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * agree with Shadowjams, feels like I've been transported to a bad undergrad philosophy class where the assignment is to refute the constitution using alternative philosophical models from antiquity. This is not a forum for that.  If there is substantive opinion Tfd prior to the 50s, start listing, I'll read.  Not general philosophy but specific to second amendment.   Regarding your argument read the ninth amendment and go to the natural law wiki page. They dabble in that stuff.  I gave you the Taney concurring pre civil war opinion.  Start listing relevant stuff to support your thesis or let's end the high school philosophy assignment, I'm bored. -Justanonymous (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also take your back pedaling and fallback to questioning the underpinnings of natural law as an acknowledgement that you acquiesce and accept defeat on a collective interpretation of the second amendment under natural law. It's a big step back you take.  Also in the spirit of J8079s and providing citations, the whole "natural law is an opinion" bit was soundly refuted in a landmark decision, what was that called? Hold on, it'll come to me, ah yes.....a little rumble gregariously know as American Revolutionary War.  Now, let's get back to topic shall we.....and quit the philosophy jokes.Justanonymous (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party, I don't have internet at my new house yet, so I am catching up from behind at work.
 * "Standard View" - this is a term of art, and was originally put forth by gun-rights advocates. Although it is defensible with sources, I think we should avoid it, and go with the much more intuitive individual vs collective anywhere we are discussing those concepts.
 * "Natural right" - Cruikshank directly states that the right to bear arms does not proceed from the 2nd amendment, but does not go so far as to directly state it is a natural right. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence (It does say elsewhere that life and liberty are natural rights). I think we should absolutely say that the right is not dependent on the amendment, but classifying it as a "natural right" may be pov/or. Perhaps just quoting Cruikshank is the thing most defended by policy?

Here is a very rough draft of what I propose as the lede

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial, and subject to numerous interpretations. In 1875 (Cruikshank), the Supreme Court noted that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." In 1939 (Miller), they ambiguously ruled that the amendment [protected arms that had a]  reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. This ignited a long-standing debate on if the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right. In 2008 (Heller), they resolved that debate, and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, but that ''the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose''. In 2010 (McDonald) the amendment was incorporated against the states, overturning previous rulings stating that it only restricted the Federal Government. The exact scope of the protections provided by the amendment, and what restrictions on gun ownership and use, and how Miller and Heller interact with each other, are still under debate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 March 2013


 * Sounds reasonable. It might be helpful to break it into paragraphs or abridge it.  Re natural rights:  Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival, JHU, 1998, p. 335, "Scalia's modern law thus has tried to escape the law of the pre-modern past, especially the ideas of natural law and natural rights that influenced the Framers of the Constitution, judges in early America, and some conservatives."  We need a source that he based his decision on natural rights, and we cannot claim natural rights exist unless there is academic consensus.  TFD (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Full protection thread
Full protection on this article is a massive over-reaction. The recent history that lead to protection is from established editors that if they're getting out of hand can easily be blocked, as appropriate. This has been full protected for entirely too long. I'm no fan of 3rr bickering, but full protection on this is absurd. There's almost nothing to warrant that here. (don't even think about bringing up substantive 2nd amendment or whatever arguments in this topic) Shadowjams (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * no there was edit warring going on here and this is a very important article. We have high school kids around the world coming here every day to use the resource.  This needs to be a stable article. A war going on here about basic philosophy is distracting and entirely of place. I support keeping the article mainstream and stable.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Shadowjams; this full protection is for edit warring, and edit warring took place. Yes, one could have blocked the edit warring (established) editors (after appropriate warning of course, and I am not sure who would have been ready to issue the warnings in the first place), but what would have been gained by that? Some more miffed editors complaining about admin misconduct, but no real progress in terms of article content. At least the full protection brought enhanced activity to this talk page, as it should be. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not regular here, although I know some familiar names. So maybe I missed some major vandal storm... however, looking at the history recently, I don't see anything that can't be handled by blocks, and semiprotection's a lot different than full protection. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah some of us are the same. locking down pages like this is standard protocol though.  I've seen multiple admins locking down pages on these sometimes contentious pages.  I support.  It's too easy for people to destroy a lot of good work in a short amount of time through bad faith editing...I've seen it.  It's also really hard on admins to warn specific editors and block because these are not normal edit wars, they're ideological sometimes.  It's an endless battle for admins to police.  Lock it down for three months and then only the real good faith hardworking editors remain. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly unfamiliar with pp. I'm just bothered that the article's been locked down as much as it is. If the issue is a disagreement among regulars, which it seems like it is, perhaps there can be an agreement on that point first. I acknowledge that this proposal requires some back and forth, which might mean either 1) ceding to other people's opinions, or 2) not reverting someone. With some very small exceptions, I think the lead to this article right now is doing ok. It's not great, but it's not awful either. I would be more than happy to discuss actual improvements to the article, and I'd like to see it merely semi-protected, but I'm very open to discussion on that point. I have a lot of experience vandal patrolling, and so I know it's easy to miss things, so if full protection's required I"m fine with that. But my hunch is, given my limited exposure here, that semi protect is enough. Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we shall see, we have less than 1 hour protection time left.....Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * btw, here is the guidance/policy that Supports the admin action.  WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not necessarily have based my decision on that (and actually I haven't....and it is only an essay, btw), but in a contentious area as this, blocks would only have disgruntled the editors, and drama at one of the admin noticeboards would almost certainly have ensued, with much spilling of virtual ink, nerve-wrecking tantrums etc. Lectonar (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hahahahaha, the page I cited says that admins will never admit to this rationale. I was here and agree and support your approach (not that you need the support). :-) -Justanonymous (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I sense all good blood here... I'm morbidly curious like Lectonar is when pp expires. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (it won't be the first time). Shadowjams (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just to help pass the time: if I get too caught up with all this here, LIGHTBULB at least manages to make me smile a bit (as does Three men in a boat), btw....Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this talk page is used as a chat room. WP:Forum. I don't know what to do about that. The other problem WP:Disrupt I have collected difs and I know how to handle that. J8079s (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)