Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 35

New first sentence rev 2
'''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 rights of self-defense and to resist oppression 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.'''
 * This has broad support above and is found with out exception in WP:RS see It's better than what we have. When the lock comes off I will '''Be Bold"" J8079s (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am about as pro guns as you can get, and personally agree with the statement, but it is absolutely a POV/SYNTH/OR problem for the purpose of wikipedia. We are discussing the amendment, we should not be discussing posse comitatus (particularly since it wasn't passed until 1878). See my proposed lede just above. It covers all the same points, but much more neutrally.  Gaijin42 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This just the first paragraph your rough draft is rough its going the right direction.would you accept as the first sentence: 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 rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. I think we are close enough to work in main space. J8079s (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this goes too far into POV " natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state". There are plenty of sources to back up this viewpoint (which I agree with). There are also plenty of sources to the contrary. We can't be picking who is right, and the needed level of detail is too much for the lede.  I think we should save that for the body of the article, where we can discuss each viewpoint in detail along with the sources that defend it.  My (updated) version above touches on this saying "The purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial, and subject to numerous interpretations", but then going on to detail the SCOTUS rulings that help to narrow down the "truth".
 * The only debate I can find including dissent in heller is wich part of the "right" is protected by the amendment. do you have a source to the contrary? J8079s (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what you are asking me to source? I think my statement is pretty self evident, and should be considered "true" by everyone on all sides of the debate - it is just stating that there are in fact sides to the debate. Are you saying that is not the case? If you are referring to my first sentence, I would say that it is YOU that need to provide adequate sourcing for your version, as you are just stating as a matter of fact what the purpose and intent of the amendment was. (Again, to be clear, I agree with you personally, but think that our opinions are not sufficient sourcing for such a statement, and I admit there are source-able counter opinions) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to use secondary sources, not individual editor's reading of a Supreme Court judgment. Note for example that Scalia never claims there is a natural right to self defense.  TFD (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heller said, "The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right," so I think the connection has been invoked by the court. The current intro might be more NPOV though.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can find good sourcing for "auxilliary right", "natural right", "common law right" "ancient right (HELLER!)", etc. there does not appear to be consensus, even among pro-gun sources on how to characterize the right. (However, In light of the SCOTUS decisions, and subsequent commentary by notable reliable sources I think it is completely non-controversial to describe it simply as a "right".)

For example, I think there is equally good sourcing for "natural right" as "auxiliary right" (Blackstone) "[I]n vain would these rights [personal security, personal liberty, and private property] be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. [........] The fifth and last auxiliary right [...] is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law", also discussed greatly in To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. By Joyce Lee Malcolm. or "ancient right" from Heller " deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms", etc. also good sourcing for "common law right" My point is we should not be picking ANY of these terms, as there is not consensus for any particular one (even among the most staunchly pro-gun sources)

similarly we should not be sating as a fact the purpose or intent of the amendment. The SCOTUS rulings are by definition the law. Everything else is an opinion which may or may not be supported by evidence and logic. However, we should outline arguments towards this in the body, including the plethora of quotes from the founders, alternative drafts, academic research etc Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Risking WP:FORUM, but if I were to be arguing this personally, I would say that the right to self defense is the natural right, and the right to bear arms is a means to that end/auxilliary/common law right, but that it is not in and of itself a natural right. Plenty of room for everyone to disagree with me. The point is that any particular interpretation is nothing but WP:OR as there is not a wide consensus either within wikipedia, or in the world. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We might be on the same page the origin of the right 969 sources that all say the same thing (self preservation and resist oppression). The scope of the amendment was the debate. J8079s (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's WP:Primary but -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
 * Those are the kinds of rights that the accompanying Constitution is enumerating in the Bill of Rights...the inalienable kind - they are just Rights (things that nobody, no mob, can take nor legislate away and the Rights remain even if you burn the constitution and write 10,000 laws to the contrary). Some would argue that I have no Rights (the inalienable kind) but to them I say that many men have shed blood aggressively arguing to the contrary and Here I stand. I'll stop to not risk WP:FORUM-Justanonymous (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but it is SYNTH/OR to make the leap that the RTKABA is specifically being discussed as one of those unalienable rights.  It is a right. the right existed before the 2A. The exact scope and nature of the right is debated. In the US the bounds of that debate is limited by SCOTUS precedent.  Everything else is POV imo. It is completely uncontrovercial that the bill of rights protects some natural rights, and some "not-natural" rights. For example, Trial by Jury is clearly a legal right, but not a natural right (See Madison) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To J8079s, The fourth and fifth amendments I see as being for the purpose of protecting natural rights, otherwise one person could just come and arrest me, try me, deprive me of my rights? No - The fourth and fifth are collective agreements between we the people to safeguard my Rights because that is the purpose of government and why we have the bloody document and government (Jefferson). On the arms front - also need arms to form government and to avoid mob rule and to survive. Aristotle said,  "Let us then enumerate the functions of a state, and we shall easily elicit what we want. . . . thirdly, there must be arms, for the members of a community have need of them, and in their own hands, too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against external assailants" (Book 7, ch. VIII).  So you need arms to survive (life), for self-defense (life), to form government (to form constitution), to avoid oppression and to guard the outside borders.  You need arms to form constitution, bare hands make a very tennous foundation upon which to base your society (the next big man that shows up tears what you've built down).-Justanonymous (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting argument, that I am inclined to agree with, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. this is not a general article/discussion about the origin/purpose/effect of rights. It isn't even an article about the RTKABA. Its about the 2A, which is a much narrower topic. Within just the scope of the 2A, how do we describe the right? I think EVERY adjective is probably subject to POV issues. Do you have particular edits to either my proposed lede, or  J8079s'?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While the Declaration of Independence presupposes natural rights it is, as Scalia says, not part of the U.S. constitution. And if leading constitutional scholars from Madison to Scalia do not think natural rights exist, then we cannot treat it as a consensus view and certainly should not read them into Scalia's decision.  TFD (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, please cite your sources to say that Madison and Scalia don't think natural rights exist. Scalia specifically says that the second amendment right is intimately tied to the right of self-defense. I think Scalia just resists giving birth to rights from the court (he's just careful and doesn't want the court to legislate but rather as a body that interprets - but I'm not a Scalia scholar so I also want to be careful at the thought of putting words in his mouth).  I find that Madison thought some rights were expressed sometimes as things like the fourth and fifth amendment which are part of the social contract.  I guess in that respect I agree with Madison, no I'm not born with the Right to trial by jury, we have to form a social contract among ourselves and agree on the manner in which my inalienable Right to priavcy or my right to not be entrapped or imprisoned is going to be protected through the process we agree in the fourth or fifth etc (other countries might agree on a three judge panel, ours likes juries to validate whether a transgression on another's rights has occurred etc but the intent is always to protect my Rights). I think saying that the social contract is necessary to protect Rights is a far cry from Madison not thinking that natural Rights exist. I think that might be a misinterpretation but to Gaijin42's point that's a discussion for the article Bill of Rights not Second Amendment.  -Justanonymous (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See "The Bill of Rights" in Madison Vs. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law and the United States, pp. 73 ff. and Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival, JHU, 1998, p. 335. Scalia does not say that self-defense was a "natural" right, although he quotes Blackstone who used that terminology.  Of course there is a right of self defense under common law.  Again that is why we should use secondary sources that analyze what Scalia said.  TFD (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read Madison Vs Marshall and I just didn't read it the way you do. Madison didn't want a bill of rights because he worried that the Federal Government would turn the bill of rights into a bill of powers by usurping all non-enumerated (natural)rights retained by the people or the states.  Madison wanted a bill of rights that protected non-enumerated rights....and they had over 200 candidates at one point. That's why he came up with the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution known early on as Article II which is Madison's own work and speaks to a classical liberal position, the amendment protected the people's retained unenumerated rights  from federal overreach (like my inalienable right to drink a 64oz Big Gulp if I so choose! which at the time was #35,687 on Madison's candidates list of protected civil liberties) - for in depth read and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which protected the States from federal overreach.  Madison was just being an intermediary to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists who really neither wanted a Bill of Rights for different reasons.  I hear you on Scalia, I think he dabbles with natural rights but he's worried about the underlying moral foundation necessary and he really doesn't want to legislate from the court so it makes it look like he is anti natural rights.  Anyway, too chatty as J8079s writes but how else to gain consensus between rational people on a very complex topic if we can't debate the substance of the matter.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we are trying to gain consensus on the meaning of the amendment/rights, by doing WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on WP:PRIMARY sources, and should not be. The problem is way to big and complex for us to think that we are going to find the right, true answer in this forum. We need to go to secondary sources. Unfortunately the secondary sources are in conflict, and more modern ones are written specifically to advance a pro-gun or pro-gun control agenda, and therefore suspect. Therefore, we need to be much more neutral. We should not be declaring the "truth/fact" anywhere, except where there is true universal agreement, and we can outline various arguments that have been made in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)3
 * Well the issue with this article is not about an event that happened where we get a WP:RS source or two and throw out the WP:Fringe guys who claim that aliens did it. This is an article about a political ideal.  Aristotle is an author who had ideas.  Is he WP:PRIMARY?  Do we need another book on someone who analyzes what he said in the modern times....because we'll find all kinds of analysis.  Why do I need analysis from the New York Times to determine what a ruling is?  I don't and I shouldn't have to have that.  Worse, the people can be redefined to be individuals or the government or the states depending on which position supports someone's argument!  It's ludicrous and we'd get a lot farther if we just called out the people who make ludicrous claims.  It's a complex topic and why it's more chatty.  And no, I refuse to accept the Constitution as interpretted by MSNBC!
 * We can quote aristotle, the constitution, or scotus. But if they aren't directly saying something, then we cannot say thats what they "really meant". If it takes 2+ sources to make the argument, that is by definition WP:SYNTH, even if only idiots would argue otherwise. As GreekP pointed out, Miller was regularly interpreted contrary to Heller for 60 years. We disagree with those arguments. Now so does SCOTUS, but it is inherently obvious that our reading is not the ONLY reading. Interpretation is required. We are not allowed to do that ourselves. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, Cruikshank has said its a pre-existing right. It does not say a "natural right" etc. That is a reasonable assumption to make to fill in the blanks, but wikipedia does not allow reasonable assumptions. Heller says it protects a right to self defense. That does not mean we can say the INTENT was to protect self defense (or tyranny, or anything else we agree on). The intent and the effect are two separate concerns. The effect is very straight forward, especially in light of Heller. My proposed lede, using only direct quotes covers that ground quite well IMO. Where we start paraphrasing what founders meant or founders intended is where we cross the line. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Way too much chat

''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 rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.'' The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. The origin of the right 969 sources that all say the same thing (natural right/right of nature,self preservation, and resist oppression). The point of my edit is to add the definition of RTKABA. I there is an alternate definition I cannot find it in any WP:RS The scope of the amendment was the debated because the bolded section speaks to "Scope" I will start a new thread. J8079s (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackstone says it is a common law auxiliary right. His saying so (and many people quoting him and discussing so) does not define the origin/purpose of the right. Any given opinion is just an opinion. There is no universal consensus on what the origin of the right is. At most we could say "which was described by Blackstone...". The right pre-dates the 2a. Yes, we have this from Cruikshank, and other sources definitively. The exact origin of the right is multiple. For us to enumerate particular ones is POV. Remove the second half of that sentence (or attribute it rather than stating it as a fact) and we are on common ground. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with you that those are origins of the right. My objection is that in fact that LIMITS the origin of the right to those enumerated ones, and I believe the origin is in fact much wider and general, and that we (wikipedia) should not be attributing any particular motivation to the founders. Anything that relies on analysis of multiple documents is original research and synthesis. It was a pre-existing right, recognized and protected by the 2A. We all agree on this, (and more importantly so does SCOTUS). Lets get down to something we can all agree on, so we can get the Full protection turned off, and then we can debate the more detailed points later. Are the words " natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state" so important to the article that it would be faulty/misleading article to not include them? Boil it down to the essentials, and we agree, can move forward, and them make more surgical edits in isolation, rather than in the context of the entire lede/article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think too that we should say the U.S. has interpreted the amendment to mean this. The dissenting opinion was that the amendment was not intended to protect the right of self-defense.  TFD (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in absolute agreement that we can say the right protects self defense usage (per Heller) (see my proposed lede above). My objection is to statng specifically what the origin /nature of the right was, and what purpose the founders had - as that is a much more complex issue than we should bite off in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the first dissenting opinion, Stevens wrote, "Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." The other dissenting judges all agreed.  Obviously there is no consensus on the interpretation of the amendment.  TFD (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight quibble. The dissent is valuable in terms of establishing consensus (or not in this case) of if we know what the framers intended originally. (this is much in line with my arguments just previous) However, in terms of interpreting the amendment as applied today, it is irrelevant. The majority opinion states plainly that the amendment protects the right of self defense. That is unquestionably the law as stands. These two issues are separate. What the law means today is easily source-able from a handful of SCOTUS decisions and reliable sources. The origin/intent of that law is much more complicated and entire careers have been dedicated to that effort. Sorry to be a nitpicker here, but we are debating the specific wording here, and minor misstatements such as that can get us quickly off track Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't present the dissent in Roe v Wade, we just say what the common interpretation of the law or in this case the Right is. it's a violation of WP:UNDUE-Justanonymous (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not "unquestionably the law as stands", because we do not know what bearing the doctrine of retroactivity would have were the decision to be reversed. As explained in "RETROACTIVITY: A STUDY IN SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE "AS APPLIED", p. 746, "Chief Justice Marshall assumed that a decision of unconstitutionality was simply a declaration of a preexisting state of affairs and rendered the law a complete nullity. This assumption was consistent with the concept of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that judges are discoverers rather than makers of law; thus, the need for any form of retroactivity analysis did not become obvious until well into the twentieth century."  The most we can say is that this is how the court has interpreted the amendment.  Which is why we should use secondary sources that analyze the amendment rather than conducting our own original research.
 * Yes, we do present the dissenting opinion at Roe v Wade and phrase the decision in a neutral manner, "the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion." Neither do we say in the 14th amendment article that it protects a woman's right to have an abortion.
 * TFD (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Say that then, say how SCOTUS ruled and in the body talk about the dissent if you want. People are always going to argue about these things so we're not going to solve it here or in secondary sources just ask foxnews and msnbc both WP:RSes for most things but not this. Similarly an analysis in a biased book is just that, biased. That doesn't mean that we give equal weight to the dissent in the lede - the minority dissent doesn't merit equal stature to the prevalent interpretation.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And respectfully, it is unquestionably the law as it stands. I think what you meant to say is that "You don't like it," which is fundamentally different. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not know if that is the law as it stands, because we do not know if a reversal of the judgment would reinstate the DC law retroactively. In the meantime, we are left with OR based on primary sources.  I have no opinion on which opinion is correct, but prefer that we use secondary sources and avoid OR and bias.  TFD (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw shoot man, I guess that by that standard Roe v Wade means it could be overturned and retroactively we could charge a bunch of former 17 year old girls with murder all because they chose to take a morning after pill thinking it was legal?!!! We need to make rational arguments here.  You're out in the Clietophon woods!  We can't be 100% relative where all words mean whatever we want them to mean and where we can change the meaning of words on a whim.  Words have meanings and usually the common meaning is the intended meaning.  Yes, Heller is the Law of the land today regardless of what a bunch of old guys and gals decide in 500 years.  And you repeating it 1,000 times doesn't make it any less so. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is physically impossible to have an argument with someone who can't comprehend that the supreme court ruling IS the ruling and that is the prevailing interpretation of the law. So I'll stop.  I hope others read your position here and will similarly not argue with you.  If I knew you were a 100% relativist, I would've have even engaged.  Good luck out there.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

agree with Justanonymous here. You can argue that SCOTUS wrongly decided. You can make a counter-factual hypothetical about what might happen if they reverse themselves. If they reverse themselves, then THAT would be the law of the land, unquestionably, at that time. They have not done so. Their current ruling is indeed the law of the land at this moment. By using your standard, you could never comment on the meaning of any law ever, as laws and rulings are always subject to change in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When Roe v Wade came down it was retroactive, and therefore people who had abortions before the judgment were deemed not to have broken the law. If the judgment were struck down, the abortions would be deemed to be illegal, but prosecutions would be unlikely as unfair.  :That does not mean that the judgment would have no retroactive effect, but we would need a secondary source to determine that.  Certainly in civil procedure, judgments usually have retroactivity.
 * As for arguing, it is not unreasonable to demand that reliable secondary sources are used. Just because there are political implications to a decision does not make us all suddenly legal experts.
 * TFD (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

scope
Policy Per WP:LEDE: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many people only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, to invite reading more the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. And most esp.WP:NPOV Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.
 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Per these policies it was once necessary to mention 3 theories: Sates Rights(National Guard) also known as “Henigan/Bogus theory,” in honor of its two major scholarly proponents; A hybrid Individual/collective Right endorsed by the dissent in Heller and; the Standard View or academic model. This is no longer the case:
 * The States Rights modle is dead and we need not concern or selves about hurting the feelings of those who liked this model it was disowned by its advocates:

''Who says that even heated conflicts over constitutional meaning can never progress? Over the past ten years, the intellectual clash between those who claimed that, at the time of the founding, the "right to keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment was a "collective right" of the states to preserve their militia and those who maintain instead that it originally referred to an individual right akin to the others protected in the Bill of Rights has been resolved. That the individual right view prevailed definitively is evidenced by the fact that no Second Amendment scholar, no matter how inimical to gun rights, makes the "collective right" claim any more. All now agree that the Second Amendment originally referred to the right of the individual.''

''Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia.'' Cited in


 * The hybrid Model concedes defeat and now the debate is about whether the law has changed or always the way it is now, my grammer is cautious if I had said as the page does now Written to protect that would violate Npov That the second amnd Recognizes is consistant with both views with out mentioning either one.


 * The standard view is the over all winner and we can say so (not in those words) so based on overwhelming support in WP:sources and the plurality of the Court

''Judicial reluctance to consider seriously whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement perhaps reflects a tendency to view the Second Amendment, with its apparent guarantee of gun ownership, as embarrassing and politically incorrect. Under the twentieth-century “State’s rights” view, “the people” have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard.9 However, the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.''

''Historically, the right to keep and bear arms has been a key Bill of Rights guarantee related to the defense of African Americans from racist violence. The Southern slave codes were the only significant prohibitions on firearm ownership in the antebellum United States.14 Any historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment must take account of its origins in abolitionist thought, a fundamental tenet of which was that “the people” in the Second Amendment included individuals of all races, and that freedom for the slaves meant protection in their personal right to keep and bear arms.''

This is lot of text for the The second amendment recognizes this right but it will be useful further on as well. This is not an invitation to chat bring your sources or policies or just read. I assume good faith but stay on point. J8079s (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No objections to "recognizes", but I think "protects" is even better, and is equally defensible. My debate prior was your elaboration about the origin of the right (natural right, tyranny, self defense) etc. That I think requires more WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and is more subject to alternate views. Today the supreme court recognizes that the amendment protects the right. We have this quoted directly from Heller, so Im not sure why adding your redundant "amendment recognizes this right" is useful? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The amendment giving women the right to vote was contested and the court ruled on it. While some may still disagree, it is definitively settled. Same with individual right and incorporation on the 2A. We can mention views against women's right to vote, against the individual right decision, against incorporation, or obsolete per-incorporation case finding, but that should be briefly in the body of the articles, not prominently in the lead. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now the lede only mentions it in saying Miller was ambiguous, and there was a debate over individual/collective until Heller. That seems summarized enough to me? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Leser v. Garnett was a unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court and there has been no serious support for the plaintiffs hence the views are fringe. In any case it was not about whether the 19th amendment should be interpreted, but whether it was constitutional.  I.e., no one questioned that the amendment protected women's right to vote.  Nor does the article claim that it is a natural right.  That is what NPOV is about - providing all mainstream views.  TFD (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nunn
I believe the material that has been added to the Text section regarding Nunn v. Georgia does not belong in that section. That material would be better placed in the part of the article referring to Heller. Rather than risk an edit war, I want to know what editors believe regarding this material. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is quoted verbatim By Scalia in "Heller". I added Stevens reading. Still plenty of room for other readings if sourced properly. "both" povs represented. Good job coming to talk. I think we can all work in main space without edit waring. WP:Assume Good Faith. J8079s (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about location in the article. I believe the material you added should be in Heller subsection rather than in the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * how to read the amendment is debated I think we need a how to read section a subsection of text seems best still plenty of room for other readings it's best to build by addition. J8079s (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely out of place. It's not even written what's going on. I had to click through several pages to realize that Justice Scalia was writing about a court decision (Nunn v Georgia) for the Columbia v Heller case. It needs clarification and then moved (or deleted). And by the way, neutrality isn't balancing 2 extremes; it's being neutral. Naapple (Talk) 02:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Neutral Point of View means we show every notable view. While Stevens view may be WP:Fringe someday its notable J8079s (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A supreme court justice's view isn't fringe, lol, even if wrong. Naapple (Talk) 06:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think that this material should be in the Heller subsection, rather than in the Text section. That's a different issue from whether the material belongs in the article at all. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the "well regulated militia" section, but I can see good arguments for "the people", or "Heller" sections. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still looking for other readings I think it needed to be where it was. J8079s (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note....
I see that everybody is working towards consensus. I appreciate the progress that has been made, but everybody keep in mind that 3RR is really, really a red line, regardless of noble intentions or perceived vandalism (and remember please, edit warring can consist of 1 single revert). I do not want to lock the article down again, but will do so if this continues. And I do not want to start dealing blocks out, but will do so at a pinch. Thanks for everybody's work here. Keep it up, and keep calm. Lectonar (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article the Fourth
SMP0328 has twice now reverted my addition regarding "Article the Fourth", claiming it is trivia to state that this would have been the Fourth Amendment had other amendments also been ratified. That is not my purpose at all. My purpose is to explain the ACTUAL TEXT as written. Per the Image we have right at the top of this article, The words "Article the Fourth" appear directly before the words "A well regulated militia", and a description of that text is entirely appropriate in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally I would note that he is in violation of WP:3rr in doing so. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * would it fit better in this section? Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution J8079s (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see good arguments for both locations. The potential confusion/discrepancy in the text is certainly due to the historical events of drafting and adopting. However, it is literally part of the text, so text also seems appropriate. I think either would be acceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you need to reword the material you want to add. The way you have twice inserted that material, it appears to be about what number amendment the Second Amendment would have been if two other proposed amendments had been adopted with the Bill of Rights. BTW, the "actual" Bill of Rights is the one that is in the Constitution, not the proposed Bill of Rights. I haven't violated 3RR, as I've reverted you twice only. I like J8079s's suggestion. SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3rr is for ANY 3 reverts, and you have made 4 such reverts in the last 24 hours. the two directly dealing with this issue, reverting my addition of the text of the amendment, and reverting J8079's addition of the Nunn case. You need to read my edit better. I am not anywhere discussing what number the amendment appears as. "On the actual bill of rights, the Second Amendment is listed as "Article the Fourth".  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg
 * I deny edit warring. I won't revert on this article today. I believe your wording can be better. Your current wording is not clear and was/is misplaced. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe suggest alternate wording then, or ask intent here, instead of just blindly reverting twice... You are still in violation. I suggest you self-revert. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you SMP0328, I brought it to an admin's attention. We'll let him judge and decide what actions to take on you, all of us, or the page. Breaking 3RR is usually a bright red line though regardless of how we try to phrase the action. The page looks like an edit war is going on and 3RR violations to boot, the hammer can fall swiftly here and getting the page locked again and you blocked doesn't advance getting consensus, it just silences you for a few hours.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about we agree on clearer wording? I don't like your wording, so I'm not going to put it in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

what do you suggest. You find fault with my wording, you propose an alternative. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Refer to what text was used when the Bill of Rights was proposed without referring to the possibility that the Second Amendment could have ended up being the Fourth Amendment. That would make the intent of your wording clearer. Also, don't refer to the proposed Bill of Rights as being the "actual" Bill of Rights. The actual one is the one that was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that whoever broke 3RR to self revert now in good faith and open up a discussion on the talk to iron it out before the admin shows up. Because once he does, he might block the individual user or the entire page given the history. We have to show progress. If he shows up and sees the edit war going on or us being uncivil on the talk pages, the hammer could fall. Let's show good faith and work it out here.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "adopted" bill of rights. The amendments directly modify the constitution. There is no "Bill of Rights" except for as a historical piece of paper. The bill of rights consists of ALL the proposed amendments (including ones which were not ratified) as the words "Bill of rights" refers to the actual document written. The bill proposed several amendments. Some of them were approved. I believe my text already is clear in that it is referring to the actual text of the bill of rights. On the actual bill of rights, the Second Amendment is listed as "Article the Fourth" The rest goes on as explanatory text. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the 2nd Amendment. Anything else could be a small mention somewhere, with an explanation. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "Bill of Rights" is commonly used to collectively describe the first ten amendments to the Constitution, not the group of twelve proposed amendments submitted to the States by the 1st Congress in 1789. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This clearly is trivia and doesn't belong in the text section. Somewhere under history is where it should go. Naapple (Talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus in favor of having this material in the article, that material should be placed here. That section concerns the Second Amendment's passage in the Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Naapple (Talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

20th century views expansion
In general I am ok with the expansion, but I think that we should not be presenting Halbrook et al quotes as unbiased/wikipedia voice. At a minimum, we need to add attribution to those quotes, and probably add a quote from someone who was actually professing that view, rather than someone just arguing against that view.

This whole section obviously falls into the "problem" bucket that a good portion of the article does - historical debates/controversy are notable and sourceable, even though Heller has resolved the debate. It might be worth forking the article into a debates/controversy/alternative/historical interpretations of the 2A article, to keep the current article focused on "As currently interpreted" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If we can all stay on task (focusing on a quality neutral article) then I tend to think that "covering and condensing" rather than splitting is the way to go.  BTW I've been skeptical of some of what's in the pre-Heller lead additions.  But what I told myself is that I'm going to more fully read and absorb tha CRS report before saying anything.   BTW that looks like an immensely good source.    Secondary, thorough, expert, unbiased.  The only problem is that it is so long.   :-)  North8000 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have something more specific in terms of the lede additions you see as problematic? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wanted to wait until I did the above research, but my concerns are:
 * Cruikshank quote is so lacking context / explanation that it is misleading and confusing.  I think that it was just basically a "Not (yet) incorporated" finding.
 * If so, Cruikshank S/B a minor note, not a part of the lead.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to Weasel per WP:NPOV esp NPOV  it is what WP:RS actually say that count. That most sources support the standard view and poke holes in other theories is what we are required to represent. It is not about hurting the feelings of Wikipedia editors who supported other views. As far as I can tell, from RS current "gun grabber" theory is that this is a limited right subject regulation and restriction no one of any reportable weight speaks to an unlimited right. We may need a WP:content fork to keep this page short and inline with other Amendment pages, I think this could be dealt with at Right to keep and bear arms but that page needs work. also some could go at "Heller" and at Firearm case law in the United States wich also needs work. Please reread the lede as if you didn't already know about the 2nd amnd. Then think what we need to change. J8079s (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By that standard, I find the lead to be mostly confusing and uninformative. What is missing is a statement of what the two or the big questions were in order to make sense out all of the court stuff that is in the lead. These were:
 * Incorporation/ does it limit the power of the States? This was more procedural than debated, but was previously an important factor.
 * Individual right vs collective-only right
 * Are everyday folks "the militia"?   This question has been rendered less important by Heller
 * North8000 (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Cruikshank, the main reason for including that in the lead is to back up the "pre-existing right" claim we make in the prose. I wanted to show that this was not a novel idea that was developed in Heller, but that even through the miller etc timeframe that was already the accepted view.

Your 3rd question is moot, as "who is the militia" only matters if it is a militia right, so I think we can skip that in the lede all together and just deal with it in the "historical debates"

We do address the first two questions in the lede (although SMP keeps reverting out the word incorporated). I think the miller "debate" is worthy of the lede, as the debate/controversy was very notable and Heller is relatively recent. In the long run, once Heller and its ramifications becomes more firmly established in the courts and minds of the public, the timeline in the lede may become less important.

The original "problem" I was trying to address was : How much do we need to cover the "3 viewpoints" etc (and other similar sections), as the entire framework in which that question is valuable has been washed away by Heller. That question is only valuable as a way of trying to dis-ambiguate Miller IMO. So do we keep it in place as a "1st class citizen" of the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. And I don't have a certain opinion on the answer. My quick gut feel is leave Cruikshank and Miller out of the lead.   Include Heller, and reduce McDonald to  a sentence tacked onto the end of Heller. Add an intro sentence to Heller explaining the main open question which it ruled on.  North8000 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with North. The second paragraph deals with the controversy issue therefore Cruikshank and Miller do not need to be in the lede (perhaps add them as wikilinks after numerous interpretations). Citations 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 need to be more specific i.e. page #’s, publisher, ISBN etc. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think North is dead on. Naapple (Talk) 07:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weight requires that we include all main views. The first poster's comment, "Heller has resolved the debate" is a triumph of optimism over reality and following the view is biased.  Certainly we need to explain how the amendment was interpreted by the courts before Heller and also explain other viewpoints.  TFD (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO that falls short 2 times over from mandating that they be in the lead:
 * "All main views" refers to in the article, not in the lead.
 * Not sure until I research this more, but I don't think that those two Scotus cases weighed in on any of the alternate views. As I understand it, Cruikshank just ruled "not incorporated yet"   (and nobody is debating incorporation) and Miller was ambiguous regarding any of the items with alternate views.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD, which is a guideline, says, "This page in a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.... It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. (my emphasis)" While you may not have researched the Supreme Court judgment, four justices opposed the majority opinion.  Surely you would want the judgments with which you disagree - Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Miranda, etc., be presented in the same neutral manner.  TFD (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a different topic than pre-Heller court cases which we were discussing. (sidebar I don't understand your comment "judgements with which which you disagree"    I agree with all of those  judgements.  And the comparison is not parallel.  Those would be articles on the court cases, this is an article on an amendment)  I think that mentioning the biggest question and the two views on it would be good for the lead. That's what I had in mind when I recommended a preface to Heller. But IMO describing dissents from a specific case is undue for the lead, but fine for the body of the article.  North8000 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is a prominent controversy about what rights the amendment was intended to protect, in particular an individual right to self-defense. TFD (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes / agree. But if you go beyond the narrower question of "individual" vs. "collective only" you are getting into dozens of topics that Scotus has not ruled on. 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In the lede, we should provide the relevant quotes directly from the cases, "individual right", "traditional lawful such as self defense ", etc and not provide any interpretation or analysis (especially our own). In the body we can expand to say that the exact ramifications of the ruling are not fully understood yet, and could provide contrasting upper and lower bounds for interpretation from reliable/notable sources. The followup heller case, that SCOTUS did not hear, about the assault weapon ban in DC may be instructive as part of the "allowed restriction" to that end, since it did have a chance to overturn that ban and did not do so.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I pretty much agree. But with the "individual vs. collective-only right" question being the gorilla in the living room on the 2A for the last 20-30 years, do  you think we should mention it in the lead?   As a summary of one of the major items in the article?  I'm thinking yes.  And should Miller and Cruikshank be in the lead?  I'm thinking not, but would defer my answer until after I read and absorb the CRS report. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
A main focus in this section is on Madison and the Virginia delegation. There’s no mention of the Pennsylvania delegation that wrote about the individual right to keep arms for self-defense and for hunting :

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for the purpose of disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

The actual text of the second amendment was lifted mostly intact from the Virginia delegation’s submission which was succinct.

Sorry about the crude editing job here -- I'm a newbie talker.

Dingo495 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome Dingo – you’ll find the Pennsylvania delegation discussed in the Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (Ratification Debates)
This section makes several biased statements that go beyond the supporting evidence provided. They are:

"Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny." This implies that this view was held by all "framers" of the constitution, but only one such person is quoted.

"The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected." Again, this implies that this was the standard, if not only, view at the time.

Additionally, much of the text is directly quoted from the opinion of Judge Sam R. Cummings, but is not directly attributed to him, instead linking The Providence Foundation website (link #92) or some other reproduction of his opinion. He was a Reagan appointee and likely biased, but any any rate, it should be clear that this is the opinion of a single judge and not a synthesis of several sources.

My sincerest apologies if any of this does not conform to Wikipedia etiquette, this is my first time disputing neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosfercho (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally the first step is to bring it up at the article talk page and discuss it. If it's not resolved then there might be a "dispute". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the framers, the source is meant to be an example of the framers' belief. With that said, another example involving a different framer would be helpful. Do you believe Judge Cummings being a Reagan appointee make him biased? What if he had been a Clinton nominee? What you are pointing out are places in the article that can be improved, not signs of bias. SMP0328. (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Providence Foundation website (link #92) has been removed. I Removed POP tag while under discussion. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases
The article (8th section, 3rd paragraph) cites four cases, Robertson, Miller, Heller and McDonald, as "primary second amendment cases".

Robertson v Baldwin 165 US 275 (1897) a thirteenth amendment case about a claim of involuntary servitude by sailors who jumped ship. The only reference to the second amendment is one sentence in dicta, it is not a review of the second amendment itself. Therefore this is not a "primary second amendment case." So this case reference should be removed from the paragraph.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) is a fourteenth amendment case ruling that the second amendment applies to the states. It is not a review of the second amendment itself. So it should also be removed from that paragraph.

The detailed references to the two cases, occurring later in the section, should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoS Posts (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree on baldwin, disagree on McDonald. Incorporation is a major issue, and this ruling invalidated whole swaths of local and state gun laws. It is a major development in gun laws in the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gaijin42 and so I have restored McDonald to that sentence. That case is a Fourteenth Amendment AND Second Amendment case. The issue was whether the Second protected a fundamental right and so applied to the States (including their municipalities) via the Fourteenth. SMP0328. (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gaijin and SMP... McDonald is clearly a second amendment case (arguing otherwise seems to be trolling... I guess Tinker is a 14th amendment case too and should be removed from the 1st amendment article). Shadowjams (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Official text
The Text section has been edited to refer to one of the versions of the Second Amendment as being the official version. I believe this is OR. There is no sourcing for one version being the official version and the other version not. I would like to know what other editors think of this issue. SMP0328. (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Certainly there are different versions. (although there appears to be a small edit war on sourcing). Perhaps this link could be a source for the multiple versions (as well as perhaps the sources this site itself used) http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html

Here is a nifty article discussing the commas http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0, which has a quote bearing on the "official" debate - "Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version."

another book discussing the commas (and weighing in on official) http://books.google.com/books?id=nM4FiKe_XOQC&pg=PT150&dq=second+amendment++comma&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nxamUd2vO-WXiQLqq4DAAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg "The USG is inconsistent in the use of comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanent record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma. The GPO has produced versions both with and without this comma [...]" ''This appears to be a circular ref back to wikipedia. ''

My opinion : Many versions are official, as they were all created through authorized and official processes. This is compounded by the fact that even modern printings are not consistent. However, I do think that calling out the versions as from "The transcript version" or "As written on copy X"  or some such is appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the proper approach would be to use the most consistent version (I'm guessing the national archives version would be the best) and then to add other commas using brackets, and then to have a note indicating the differing versions. Shadowjams (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The following is from a letter to Congressman Tom Campbell, from the Library of Congress. It was later published in:  (Page 184 is not available via Google Books preview, but you can can get to it on Amazon after logging in and searching):
 * "The Bill of Rights, as passed by both houses of Congress, contained twelve articles. The first two articles failed of ratification, and thus it was article four which ultimately became the Second Amendment. The "official copy of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing articles to the Legislatures of the States," as exhibited at the National Archives Building contains all three commas. However, to facilitate ratification of the proposed amendments, 13 copies were made by hand for forwarding to the states. At least one of these documents (viewed at the National Archives Building) omitted the final comma. In conveying notice of ratification, some states (e.g. Delaware) merely attached the official state action to the copy received. Other states (e.g. New York) recopied the text of the amendments in its notification. The New York ratification document of March 27, 1790 contains only one comma in the fourth article. It would seem that the critical documents for final determination of proper punctuation would be the official engrossed copy of the joint resolution as passed by Congress and the document agreed to by each ratifying state. However, the multitude of handwritten copies relied on in the amendment process makes it impossible to determine what the "official" punctuation would be. While there may, in fact, be no "official" punctuation, few have structured their arguments concerning the true intentions of the framers of this amendment around the placement of these commas. The proper use or omission of punctuation may therefore be of little moment in this instance."

- Kent M. Ronhovde, Legislative Attorney for the Library of Congress (undated, circa 1989)


 * — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

excellent source, very nice. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Congressional Research Service report
Someone's attempts to mis-use and mis-spin it aside, I think that the Congressional Research Service report has immense quality and value with respect to pre-Heller court cases potentially or actually reflecting on the individual rights question. (the pre-Miller Scotus cases never got anywhere near to dealing with it, they were essentially decided  based on general non-incorporation grounds, basically that constitutional amendments at that time protected people against the federal government, but not against state governments) It says that pretty much everyone agrees that Miller was ambiguous on  / did not rule on that question. Essentially that it only addressed the collective/militia defense and did not discuss or rule on individual right. It basically said that there was then a approx 60 year fuzzy period where lower level courts were mostly recognizing only a collective right but not saying that an individual right did not exist. The first high level court ruling on the individual right question was Emerson in 2001 saying that an individual right exists. And then another (Silveira) one conflicted with that and another (Parker) concluded that the individual right exists. Parker became Heller (which is where the CRS report ends, prior to the Heller decision.) Heller settled it and McDonald incorporated it.

The scope of the article with respect to the courts is to cover all 2A related Scotus cases, plus some post Heller cases in courts sort of one level down. So this does not include pre-Heller lower court cases. GP's statements were mis-representing mis-spinning that material. If we wanted more comprehensive coverage on that question in the courts, it would probably to add a few sentences to Miller (along the lines of what I summarized, sourced to the CRS report) plus going "one level down" in the courts in the pre-Heller coverage. Not sure whether or not we should do this. I could work on it if we want to. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting. Such material could give more context as to the legal environment in which Heller existed before SCOTUS ruled on it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll build it in place piece by piece(no rush). Title would be something like "Individual right and the higher courts" North8000 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When using a case name use italics and don't say "the ____ case". For example, say Heller, rather than "the Heller case". This is just for consistency's sake. SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. Looks like you fixed those. Thanks. I'm done for now. North8000 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've merged the section you created with the section dealing with Court of Appeals dealing post-Heller. Your material is the first subsection, with pre-existing material being the second subsection. Because the two sections dealt with the Courts of Appeals, I felt that they should be one section. SMP0328. (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy that you are finally considering the inclusion of one of my many reliable sources, but wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. What right does North have to cherry-pick only the quotations he/she likes rather than a fair and a balanced portrayal of the article? North, if you insert your quotations from the CRS, you have to allow me to do the same.GreekParadise (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The heart of the matter -- as you well know -- is that all of the lower courts post-Miller/pre-Emerson recognized only the collective right, and unless and until you are willing to accurately allow the history of the Second Amendment post-Miller, pre-Emerson to be accurately reflected in the article, the article will never be accurate. You have to allow me to quote from reliable sources, including case law. Also, I have to be able to delete unsourced, unfactual statements.GreekParadise (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To which case are you referring? SMP0328. (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See cases cited above and below.GreekParadise (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article practically useless -- riddled with POV
'''WARNING: EDITORS REFUSE TO ALLOW INFORMATION FROM HUNDREDS OF RELIABLE SOURCES TO BE CITED REGARDING THE ACCURATE LEGAL HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Please seek reliable source if you want legal history of the Second Amendment.'''

If you are reading this article, please be advised that people here pushing a pro-gun agenda have refused to allow the following reliable sources to be used:

1. The Second Amendment itself -- which does NOT protect an unlimited "right to bear arms" but instead in its text modifies the right to bear arms by the dependent clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The first paragraph is absolutely inaccurate by the express language of the Second Amendment and all US Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions interpreting it, because no Federal Court has ever upheld an unlimited right to bear arms.

2. 60 years of case law by all US Courts from 1939 to 2000 which exclusively found the right to bear arms conditioned on service in a militia. Explicitly thrown out of this article's citations was case law by the United States Supreme Court and case law from every one of the US Court of Appeals from the 1st to the 11th which followed Miller and its progeny until the Heller case.

3. The Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the head Supreme-Court writer for the New York Times, and a large body of Professors have not been allowed to express their views in this article, while obscure gun-advocates have been allowed in. Wikipedia policy expressly allows for data from RELIABLE SOURCES to be included and also allows two sides of a point of view to be expressed.

IN SUM, PLEASE IGNORE THIS ARTICLE. It is inaccurate and the editors here refuse to allow it to be accurate. There has been an on-going edit war that has occurred for several years as editors have pleaded with the NRA-POV-pushers to allow accurate reliable information to be presented here. It has all been unceremoniously reverted even though all had to concede that the deleted information was accurate and reliably sourced.

The article is bullshit. Do not read it. There's a reason why the unsourced paragraphs are unsourced. They are opinion. Reliable information from reliable sources has been deleted. I tried for several months to cite reliable sources such as the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, and direct quotations from US Supreme Court cases. All were rejected in service of a gun agenda.

They want you to believe the Second Amendment allows everyone in America (including the insane and the terrorists) an unlimited right to own guns. It's simply not the case.

If in doubt, read the Second Amendment itself. You'll see why Courts found through more than 200 years of the history of the Second Amendment, found it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for service in a well regulated militia but NOT the right to keep and bear arms for murder or for attacks on the Government. Even George Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

It is a shame that the editors of this article are so intent on pushing a gun agenda that they can't follow basic wikipedia policy of allowing reliable sources and showing both sides of a controversy. But sadly the fact remains. For more of the reliable sources that have been excluded, read below:

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'"

There are many more sources. I have tried to put in at least fifty that have been deleted by editors who concede the sources are reliable but prefer to push their own agenda. Truly sad. But until wikipedia policies are followed, we must keep the disputed tag up. I will not be satisfied until:

a) reliable sources citing factual, relevant, and essential statements about the Second Amendment are allowed to be included in the article, including the text of Supreme Court opinions which must accurately reflect the holdings in those cases; and

b) both sides of the collective/individual controversy are allowed to be presented. "Individualists" can cite any source they want -- even obscure professors endowed by the NRA -- as long as the bias of their sources is made clear.  But "Collectivists" should have an equal opportunity to cite their sources as well.

Finally, many of you know I tried mediation but it was rejected by those pushing the NRA-POV here. We are at an impasse.GreekParadise (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are covered in the article. The issue was that you wanted to insert a particular opinion (and a dubious one at best) as fact into the lead. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This was dealt with already. The consensus against you is the same as it was then. You want to insert your opinion into the article as if it is fact. SMP0328. (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry folks. You can't have a consensus that 2+2=5. It's false and you know it's false. Reliable sources always trump conjecture.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I like bulleted lists to break up my logic/arguments, sorry :)
 * Miller, the second amendment, the militia act etc are ambiguous
 * Says who? GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some read it as individual, some read it as collective.
 * No federal court said "individual" until the 21st Century.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * under wikipedia rules, reliable sources are the supreme authority, but reliable sources from decades/centuries ago are certainly not used in favor of reliable sources using the most up to date information.
 * For the question of what happened in 1939-99, contemporaneous sources are most relevant. I realize that Brown v. Board of Education overturned segregation in 1954, but to proclaim that no court upheld segregation from 1896 to 1954 would be a lie. And the correct way to determine what courts decided between 1896 and 1954 is to cite decisions in that time period, not to cite current law. I never claimed that the "individual rights" decision was not current law post-Heller.  I claimed that it was not law prior to the 21st century.  And that is the view universally held by every federal case that analyzed the Second Amendment prior to 2000.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Under our form of government, SCOTUS is the supreme authority on what the constitution says, what laws say, and what their own opinions say.
 * The SCOTUS determines current law. They are not allowed to rewrite history.  If the SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision claims that George Washington was never President, it would not be right for wikipedia to delete all claims that George Washington was the First President. It would instead be right to put in all sources (including contemporaneous sources) to show that George Washington was indeed the First President and then to also cite the astonishing SCOTUS decision to claim he was not.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In Heller they ruled that the 2nd amendment is individual, and specifically stated that this did not conflict with miller, nor the 2nd
 * I have no problem accurately reporting the Heller decision.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At that moment, all of the collective readers became factually wrong.
 * A change in the law does NOT make prior history inaccurate. That's why we have classes in legal history. Are you saying that slavery never existed because it is currently illegal?GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We can still write that some people thought it was collective(its probably notable from a historical perspective (how we got here etc))
 * We can accurately cite the law as it existed prior to 2000. That's not "some people thinking." It was the law, even though it is currently not the law.  And if one justice changes his/her mind and we go back to the collective ruling, I will not want to wipe out the Heller history from this article. I will say that the individual held sway from the Heller decision until the decision that went back to the collective view.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All lower court rulings to the contrary immediately are invalidated (again probably historically notable, but must be qualified to say that they are by definition wrong now)
 * I never claimed they were "right." I claimed they "existed." You cannot wipe out existence.  Fact is fact. History is history. It is historically notable. So why are you refusing to allow it in the article?GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We can still write that some people CONTINUE to think that, and that they think Heller was wrongly decided (less notable unless they get traction)
 * Sure and you should. But that's not my point. My point is it was the law and it's no longer the law. But it was the law until very very recently.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * both must be done strongly attributed as peoples opinions, and not as any objective reading/translation of the facts (in light of Hellers giving us the actual reading/translation)
 * Objectively, it was the law. Objectively it no longer is.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * but the fact of what miller/2A/law says and means has been indisputably stated (until SCOTUS changes their mind! :) )
 * Wrong. Miller said what it said and should be reported accurately. What Heller said about Miller should also be reported accurately.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Such statement has been reported by many reliable sources since heller.
 * The collective right interpretation is covered here, here, and here. SMP0328. (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong here too. I have been unallowed to CITE FROM MILLER in the wikipedia article on Miller.  Why would wikipedians refuse to allow a citation from a case as evidence for what a case said unless they had an ulterior motive?GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So then ... if the above editor and POV dispute submitter is incorrect (evidently, yet again), can we remove the POV/NPOV tag(s) ? 10stone5 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. Because I'm right and you folks can't find a single source to say I'm wrong.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I say yes. They didn't even describe it accurately. That stuff is all covered. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * North's opinion has no weight in wikipedia.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting until tomorrow. If there is no further discussion regarding this alleged POV violation, then I will remove the tag. SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will continue to replace the tag unless and until reliable sources are allowed to be cited here on this issue. I have suggested mediation, and the "keepers of the article" have sadly refused.GreekParadise (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing SMP0328, North8000, and Gaijin42 have in common is that they assert absolute falsehoods as truth with NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR FALSEHOODS. This is against wikipedia policy which allows reliable truthful information to be posted. They have made this article useless. To read the true history of the Second Amendment, I suggest reading any of the sources that I have tried to post, from the LIbrary of Congress to the Supreme Court to case law to commentary -- all of which SMP0328, North8000 and Gaijin42 refuse to allow to be posted here.

Why do these wikipedians refuse to allow the truth be posted? Because they want you to think that the Founders idiotically put information in the Second Amendment about militias that has no meaning whatsoever. But the truth is, prior to Heller, the Courts of the United States and Presidents and Congresses of the United States found consistently that the words of the Constitution have meaning and that the Founders were not idiots in believing there was an unlimited individual right to bear arms. There's a very long and undisputed history here that these three editors want to hide from you. Presumably it's to enforce a political agenda which claims that the 5-4 Heller decision less than a decade old and decided by one justice was always the law. But the truth is that the Heller view was considered even by gun advocates to be ridiculously out of the question until very recently.

How do you know that I'm telling the truth and the others are lying? Easy. I cite sources. They do not. Here's another way to tell. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the article is a lie. They say; "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." But it does not do this. I modified the first paragraph to reflect what the Second Amendment actually says, that it provides a limited right to bear arms to serve the purpose of a well regulated militia. Even Heller does not claim the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms because it cites a series of limitations to that right.

If you are new to wikipedia, you should know that in certain articles, this happens all the time. Unscrupulous editors refuse to compromise to allow reliable sources to be presented that do not conform to their political agenda. Their goal is to post propaganda to trick you into believing a lie is true. There is unfortunately no way to discipline these charlatans except by posting messages such as these. I have repeatedly sought mediation and they have repeatedly refused.

In wikipedia, one is required to assume good faith until proven otherwise. That's why for several months, I urged, begged, and pleaded with these wikipedians to review my impeccable sources. They not only refused to read my sources; they claimed that their PERSONAL OPINION has more merit than the Supreme Court, Court decisions from virtually every Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Congressional Research Service and scholarly opinion (including opinion from honest NRA representatives who nonetheless concede that the "individual rights" theory is a very recent legal interpretation. These editors must know they're wrong, because rather than dispute my sources -- or provide their sourced opinions in addition to mine (difficult to do because my sources are true and theirs are non-existent), they simply unceremoniously reverted everything that they did not wish was true. And they still do this. They still claim their personal opinion has more value than actual language from Supreme Court opinions.  One must assume good faith until bad faith is objectively proven. I believe that now bad faith has been objectively proven. And that makes me sad.

I'm afraid this warning is the only way to let people know the article is useless. Unless these editors are willing to follow wikipedia policy and allow reliable sources to be cited, I will continue to post this warning.

Ask yourself why these editors are fighting so hard not to allow objectively true legal history to be presented. Why not simply allow the history to be presented objectively and then talk about their current views in the opinion section? Why? Because they want to mislead you. Just remember: 2+2=4. And no matter how many times they tell you 2+2=5, don't believe them.

I again challenge the "keepers of the article" to allow objectively true information backed up by hundreds of reliable sources to be cited in the article, even if it does not fit your personal agenda. I firmly believe Wikipedia should be objective.

GreekParadise (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Greek Paradise, your descriptions above do not match what you were trying to do which to war in a dubious highly spun unsourced POV statement into the lead.  This is getting disruptive. North8000 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One other comment. Greek Paradise, please refrain from changing user comments on a talk page, whether it is for formatting purpose or otherwise. In this case, there was no change to context. Still, that is a first for me on wikipedia.


 * Further, as one who has not been involved in any of the edits for this article, I simply can not see the point of this above statement, 'The thing SMP0328, North8000, and Gaijin42 have in common is that they assert absolute falsehoods as truth with NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR FALSEHOODS.' While I won't invoke any sort of wiki rules on that statement, I will make the general comment that Greek Paradise's POV argument is bordering on stage four and five, from the dispute resolution page, using Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement as a guideline -
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg
 * The next step down is ad hominem, if this dipute does not get resolved amicably. 10stone5 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * SMP, not I, changed the user comment headers from his original "Synthesis" and my original "Second Amendment article practically useless -- riddled with POV" to "POV Dispute". I have returned the headers in the comment section to how he and I originally wrote them. I ask that no one edit talk page comments or headers further.GreekParadise (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have also laid out specifically below what I want to edit on the page, just as I did three months ago. I ask all to agree that I be allowed to edit the article based on my contentions so long as all agree that my sources are correctly cited, unimpeachable, and relevant. I don't dispute other editors' rights to include relevant facts and quotations backed up by reliable sources. I do dispute their right to delete mine.GreekParadise (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If I can make an observation as an uninvolved editor... I can honestly say that I have yet to take the time to read this page so as to understand the crux of the argument, and to make an informed decision as to whether or not I agree with one side or the other. The unfortunate reality of human nature is that more often than not, a successful argument is successful not because of what one says, but because of how it is said. In other words, the content matters less than its packaging, and I can see several things wrong with the packaging as presented on this page.

For one, a vast majority of people will take one look at this page (which looks like somebody puked all over it) and then say, "WP:Too long; didn't read". Already, your pool of potential allies and converts has been sharply reduced. Next, the few that stick around a little longer will scan the page to get an overall sense. That won't help you either, I'm afraid, because the overall sense is one of aggressiveness and intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you. As soon as they read statements like "Nope. Because I'm right and you folks can't find a single source to say I'm wrong" or "North's opinion has no weight in wikipedia", you've lost the rest of them, and they haven't even gotten to understanding the content of your message. Whether it's founded upon an impassioned belief in a clear right vs. a clear wrong is immaterial, because few will tend to align themselves with an approach that has the appearance, even if only on its surface, as that of a "fanatical fringe". — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruption & worse
The last edit that GreekParadise was trying to hammer in was wanting to put a dubious, unsourced POV statement into the lead. Including wanting to a lack of addressing (until modern times) of high level courts as to whether an individual right exists as being a statement that it did not, and statements that a collective right exists as saying that an individual one did not. They also pasted in the same thousands and thousands of words again and again into talk. This time that haven't even put in any proposal with the huge amount of rant, accusations and insults that they have put in above. And if it ends up being the same edit, then the above provides no support for it and bears little relation to it. Including that most of the areas ranted about are already in the article. This is getting disruptive, is full of insults and personal attacks, and the above paste and rant is not even a discussion. GreekParadize, please stop disrupting insulting and attacking. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The so-called dubious, unsourced POV that North complains about (that the Second Amendment has a militia clause that used to be respected by the courts) is backed up by hundreds of sources including the Library of Congress, the New York Times, several Supreme Court cases, numerous Court of Appeals cases, and the language of the Second Amendment itself. North continues to hate the truth but has no sources to challenge mine. Thus the claims of "disruptive editing." North, if you disagree and you think the Second Amendment does not in fact include a militia clause or that no court ever held it so, the right wikipedia decision is to allow me to post my sources and you post yours. My sources include dozens of cases. Do you have a single court case to back up your claim post-Miller and pre-Heller? If you do not have any source to back up your claims, I ask that you cease discussion and editing and personal attacks.GreekParadise (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I've not bothered to read the full dispute here. I did review the article, then as is my custom, turned to the talk page. The article overall seems relatively balanced, though there could be more on the controversy throughout US history, with inconsistent SCOTUS and inferior courts rulings over the centuries. That said, what is operable is that Congress found it necessary to create a second amendment, that was well documented in this article. Their reasoning and the debate was sketched out, for details one goes to the references, which is proper for an encyclopedia. As for the argument as to individual or collective right, history shows clearly enough that it was both, as shortly after the second amendment was ratified, the militia act defined the militia under federal law. The only primary things changed in the various militia acts were the age of service and various qualifying factors (initially, only white men, later that was removed) until the militia act of 1903 created the organized militia as the National Guard and the unorganized militia, which was every able bodied male between 18-45 and prior service men to age 61 as the unorganized militia and also eligible for membership in the National Guard. Later amendments changed the status of women serving in the National Guard. One does not define the majority of the service age populace as militia and then claim that that large segment is the only segment of populace permitted to keep and bear arms, especially as people did hunt for subsistence then and even now in remote areas of the country. Indeed, Daniel Boone wasn't an outlaw, but did keep and bear arms outside of a military context of any sort. The number of other references throughout US history would be extensive. The key idea was that a significant number of the populace would be available in time of regional or national emergency. The militia act of 1903 was written due to the spectacular failures of the militia when mobilized in time of war, ill equipped, poorly equipped, shoddy training, lousy discipline, inept officers leading the rabble contributed to extremely high casualty counts on the part of the mobilized militias. Hence, the segmenting of the militia and there is some consideration of the creation of the Civilian Marksmanship Program as a nod toward training of the unorganized militia. That will require further research before it can be utilized either way, as it is part of a general discussion elsewhere on the history of the militias overall. Much of this I learned while doing the research of a local National Guard unit that turned out to have been founded by Benjamin Franklin, during that research I encountered much of Scalia's research, which is quite readily available. The fact is, at the time, the usage of keep and bear arms was dual use, both in a military capacity and in bearing arms for home and community defense (there was no organized police force at the time) and also for hunting. That said, the notion proposed by far right types who proclaim it remains possible "to repel tyranny" is absurd in the face of our modern military. For, they believe that their AR15 can somehow overcome 105 and 155mm howitzers, M1A tanks, B52 bombers, MLRS, various fast attack aircraft, mortars, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, smart bombs, guided missiles, drones, electronic warfare units, Special Operations teams, ad absurdium to success. Ignoring the fantastic inability of the Taliban, who have equipment far in excess of the majority of armed US citizens (including RPG's galore) to eject the US Armed Forces from Afghanistan or the Iraqi military's inability to prevent the US Armed Forces from entering Iraq and removing its government, regardless of how one feels about said military operations, the fact remains that the concept of the past is the absurdity of the present in that context, even if one managed to succeed in recruiting the majority of militia age men and women and managing to equip them with modern military style firearms. However, said people could augment the National Guard, under the orders of their local or state government in time of a major disaster, as has repeatedly happened in the past, though their ability to exercise police powers would be dubious at best today, even under posse comitatus conditions, as today, there is a greater burden of knowledge of the law for those exercising police powers.
 * Still, the fact is, back when the second amendment was penned, firearm ownership was relatively high, compared to the majority of US history. The nation was still partially frontier, hunting, threats from Native Americans was high, international tensions were still rather high, as 1812 quite well proved and citizen ownership of firearms was both common and important. However, military type muskets or rifles were rather expensive and rare, typically only the wealthy possessed said firearms and most certainly only the wealthy could possess a field piece (aka cannon)! To properly understand what the second amendment was meant to be for and what the thinking was behind it requires study of the history, reading of both sides of the argument's writings, which are extensive and knowledge of the concerns of the time regarding threats, both internal and external. For sources, I'd regrettably stay away from NRA pages, I'd go with papers at the Constitution Center, National Archives, Library of Congress and various educational institutions. In short, those without a political agenda, but do have the hard documentation of the era. Lest a reader become mislead by either our frontiersmen were armed with guns that had a bang flag pop out of the muzzle when fired or that the Founding Fathers wanted every home to have a 155mm howitzer in the front yard, neither of which is anywhere near the truth. I hope that this helped a bit.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What a large amount of thorough work you have done! North8000 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis
I have reverted a series of edits that claimed that suggested that the collective right view of the Second Amendment was the one followed by the federal court and that the Supreme Court's Miller decision interpreted the Second Amendment this way. These edits also removed sourced material that showed that the amendment's meaning was uncertain before District of Columbia v. Heller. This was synthesis by an editor who believes the Second Amendment only protects a right of the States (i.e., a collective right). He is entitled to his opinion, but not to have this article promote his opinion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hereby lay down the gauntlet and challenge SMP0328 to find a reliable source -- such as case law any time in the six decades following Miller -- that supports his position. I've provided 10 sources that expressly say that "the collective right view of the Second Amendment was the one followed by the federal court and that the Supreme Court's Miller decision interpreted the Second Amendment this way." He has provided ZERO sources to the contrary. That means, according to wikipedia rules, that the view supported by 10 reliable sources (and frankly, 100 more) gets in the article and SMP0328's view has no right to be in the article.GreekParadise (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Countless examples abound if you are willing to research. collectivism in a relatively new aberration in logic and one clearly refuted by the highest court. It's clearly an individual right, Always has been. I fail to see why GreekParadise shows up here month after month with the same accusations and tired flawed arguments.  Please read  Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 in its entirety and the laws of reconstruction.  Federalist papers and early colonial and revolutionary history also clearly show it as an individual right as has the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller and McDonald recently, I tire. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Countless examples abound if you are willing to research. collectivism in a relatively new aberration in logic and one clearly refuted by the highest court. It's clearly an individual right, Always has been. I fail to see why GreekParadise shows up here month after month with the same accusations and tired flawed arguments.  Please read  Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 in its entirety and the laws of reconstruction.  Federalist papers and early colonial and revolutionary history also clearly show it as an individual right as has the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller and McDonald recently, I tire. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are people really still arguing the collective/individual right thing? Was this not put to bed by the supreme court?  Not even the brady campaign argues this anymore.  That pretty much makes the collective argument fringe, and unworthy of recognition on wikipedia.  &there4;  Na apple    TALK  &#124;  CON   22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahemmmm.....
....might I just remind in the friendliest fashion everybody involved here that there seems to be another edit-war brewing....one user is over 3RR already. Calm down, again. Lectonar (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think that an RfC might be the only way forward here....negotiation and discussion seem to be leading nowhere. Lectonar (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no specific question. GreekParadise just carpet bombs.   Once we have a specific question we can have an actual discussion. For a first attempt, see my question above on the Lewis case.    North8000 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I might say so: frankly, this article has been a mess virtually for years, and I really think much greater community input might be a way forward here (but I am almost always too optimistic...); I saw good work in March this year and the following months, but this seems somewhat forgotten now...Lectonar (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think that an RfC would be a good idea, as an SME can easily dispel misconceptions on both sides. Even money, even some parts of my own opinion. It is a contentious subject, hence it demands a greater consideration to the law, case law and culture that would require more informed input. There are unsettled case law issues present, though none I've viewed suggested said case law. There are other matters that confuse some, as comments are considered case law, which they are most certainly not. So, clear guidance is required.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to be clear about our disagreements.
Please respond specifically to any disagreements you have with the following statements. I think it is disruptive to refuse to allow truthful, reliably sourced relevant information to be placed in a wikipedia article on the grounds that certain editors "believe" without any evidence that reliable sources are untrue. So if you disagree with the statements below, please provide a reliable source to back up your disagreement. As you all know, I have a large number of unimpeachable sources to back up every statement I make below. If you're in doubt, check out our prior discussion for months on the talk page dating back to January 2013. And if you respond respectfully and ask me for a source for any of the statements below, I will re-state my sources yet again.

The heart of my disagreements are as follows:

1. I contend the Second Amendment confers a limited rather than an unlimited right to bear arms. Does anyone here disagree?

2. I contend the Second Amendment is the sole Amendment in the Bill of Rights that gives a purpose for its declarative statement, rather than a flat-out prohibition/requirement. Does anyone here disagree?

3. I contend I have a right to accurately quote verbatim from the Miller case. I want to say the case held the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" with its "obvious purpose" in view: "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the Militia. The Court found therefor that the Second Amendment does not "guarantee[] the right to keep and bear" a firearm that has no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178) Does anyone here disagree? I am happy to quote the case more at length if anyone believes these quotations are taken out of context.

4. I contend that post-Miller and pre-Emerson, the United States Supreme Court and all of the U.S. federal courts unanimously found the Second Amendment to be limited to a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia rather than an invidual right. And I want to cite a dozen or so of these cases in the footnote, including many direct quotations, because so many of you seem to think this obvious fact is somehow untrue. I also want to cite scholarly sources and the Library of Congress which say the same thing, mostly because most of you continue to dispute this. Does anyone here disagree that I have a right to do this?

5. I contend I have a right to say what the Cruikshank court "upheld a state's restriction on firearm possession." Does anyone here disagree?

6. I want to quote the U.S. Supreme Court case of Lewis v. United States (1980), which says at 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) verbatim as follows: "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.'" Does anyone here disagree I have a right to do that? (Hint: not liking or agreeing with Lewis is not grounds to prevent me from citing a Supreme Court opinion. You are allowed to distinguish Lewis if you want, but I should be allowed to quote from it.)

7. I want to be able to edit this article without being summarily reverted. If you don't like the facts I show in my sources, you are welcome to add some of your own (backed up by reliable sources of course). But arguing that federal courts, the NYT, the US Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress are not reliable sources is a non-starter. You are free to add to any quotations you believe I take out of context. But you are not free to delete quotations from reliable sources just to keep generally-accepted facts from being posted in a wikipedia article. Does anyone disagree with me on this?

Wikipedia does not entrust articles to the hands of specific editors. It is a collective enterprise. It is not supposed to reflect a specific point of view. To that end, people of different points of views should be able to edit the article to add relevant, factual information from unimpeachable sources.

Continually reverting my edits without addressing the seven points above will lead me to continue to contest the neutrality of this article forevermore.GreekParadise (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

8. I contend I have the right to make clear that no federal case prior to Heller found an individual right to bear arms (which is why it was a landmark case) and that no case prior to McDonald found the Second Amendment restricted State Governments (which is why it was a landmark case). These undisputed facts used to be in the article. There was no good reason to take it out except, I fear, to intentionally mislead. Does anyone disagree with putting back this accurate information?GreekParadise (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your quest has never been about putting in information, it has been about putting in spin via an array of methods. In essence the article already presents everything that you are describing in a neutral manner, and you want it covered in a spun manner.  THAT is the disagreement   Also that you want to insert your personal commentary into the article.      To take one of many examples of the former, Miller was addressing the "militia" route and the quote was saying that there is not a right to unlimited weapon types under that route.   You have been wanting to present stuff out of context in a way that would mislead readers into thinking that they had addressed and ruled on the individual right question; sources on both sides of the issue agree that they didn't do that. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your ad hominem attack is strong evidence that you cannot refute my claims. You cannot read my brain, don't know my "quest" better than I do, and frankly, my intentions are irrelevant. The question is can a reliable relevant source be quoted in context and verbatim or can it not be?  And if your answer is a reliable relevant source cannot be quoted in context if it does not serve the express interests of the National Rifle Association, then it is you -- not me -- that has a bias problem and should refrain from editing wikipedia further.GreekParadise (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the crux of the problem : "reasonable relationship to maintenance of a militia" does not necessarily mean collective. Having individuals have the rights to weapons could further that goal. Miller was ambiguous as to this point. SCOTUS is the 100% arbiter of what their own rulings mean, and they have explicitly said that Heller does not contradict Miller or Cruikshank. Secondly, although it states a preface, there is no indication that the right is limited to the preface (as again, explicitly ruled in Heller). I do not disagree that lower courts ruled as if the right was collective, and we mention that in the article already. Heller said they were wrong. They were always wrong, we just didn't know it until Heller, as Heller is the first time to directly address the question (and that is what makes it a landmark). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree that SCOTUS is the 100% arbiter of what their own rulings mean. I assume this means you'll let me give the SCOTUS interpreation of Miller cited in Lews (1980)GreekParadise (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * re: 'We need to be clear about our disagreements'
 * Again, I'd point out that this article's talk page has gone beyond the recommended Wikipedia Dispute resolution, into stage four / five -- Contradiction & Responding to Tone -- WP:DISPUTE
 * So that would signify an impasse in 'Dispute resolution', 'Avoiding conflict'.
 * I'd suggest 'Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard' -- but things have moved beyond that.
 * One avenue, which seems likeliest, would be 'Wikipedia:Requests for comment' WP:RFC, where outside editors could judge the dispute, the article content, and / or user conduct, in a formal setting.
 * The other option, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, WP:DRR, seems pre-mature, and much too formal a process, based on where this article and where this talk page stands right now. Looking briefly at the archives, this wouldn't be the first time this article went up for RfC. Also, this dispute, at least the content of this dispute, dates to March of this year. This should have been resolved by now. Lastly, GreekParadise, I searched in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation WP:RFM & Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests WP:RFAR, and found no formal requests for mediation/arbitration though the wiki community. Please post links of this mediation, if available. 10stone5 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise either carpet bombs the article or carpet bombs the talk page, both impossible to specifically deal with. There is no dialog or specific proposals of changes. (By "specific" I don't mean the whole carpet bomb)  A good next step for them would be to propose a specific change. If pretty solid and sourced and factual (and the lead is not the place to start) and not too huge even try it on a BRD basis. And if it's an opinion, trying it in the opinions section. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise’s comments are merely a massive rehash of the same unpersuasive arguments presented on this Talk Page and DRN back in March 2013. IMHO further discussion is not worthy of any serious editor’s time as a consensus was reached not to include his attempts at  POV. Grahamboat (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not uncommon for someone to carpet bomb when they feel strongly and know no better. That said, let's address a few of GeekParadise's points:

1: Considering that those who penned the second amendment did personally, in many cases, purchase cannon for their militia units, I'd suggest that there was no limitations considered at the time. That was largely because only the wealthy could afford military type muskets, rifles and cannon and the wealthy wished to not lose their wealth by creating a public hazard with said weapons, hence were responsible people. 2: It's been well discussed in the article, by Scalia in Heller and by historians who give all sides of the argument. It was a compromise, as the militia act later clarified precisely who the militia was, every able bodied white male between 18 and 45 at the time. The act was changed various times, the greatest change being in 1903, which divided the militia into the organized militia named the National Guard and the unorganized militia, which was every able bodied male between 18 and 45, as well as prior service men to age 61, who could be in either group as they desired. Meanwhile, there as not even a suggestion that a man of 46 should dispose of his firearm, as it was rather common for men to possess a firearm for home defense and for hunting, depending on their station in life and where they lived. 3: Miller was a bit more complex than you hint at. The NFA had recently been enacted, due to the horror over Dillinger, the St Valentine's Massacre and the carnage of other criminals throughout the land using short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and Thompson sub-machineguns. The defendants in Miller did cross state lines with NFA restricted firearms in a manner that was unlawful. Short barreled shotguns were not common in military use, save for trench action during WWI and not since, due to a lack of accuracy at combat ranges beyond the short range of trench fighting. As said weapons were not kept as part of the Department of War inventory of arms, they were not permissible as militia arms and they most certainly had no sporting usage, hence their only purpose in civilian hands could be considered at that time as only for the use in criminal activities. Just as relatively recently, the "Street Sweeper" shotgun was defined as a destructive weapon, with no sporting purpose and most certainly not in the US military arsenal at that time or currently. 4: Actually, it's been largely silent, the desire appears to be twofold. On one part, it really is a political question and should be politically decided. On the other part, some degree of confusion on the part of the justices, as evidenced by Steven's revisionist history model, which really is a living document opinion. 5: You can say anything that you wish to, right or wrong. That said, a state can regulate what is permitted within their borders with only few restrictions and that includes firearms and classes of firearms. That has long, long been held as a states rights issue that devolves to the states with only rare exceptions that would impact interstate commerce. 6: Erm, I really don't know whereinhell you're going with this one. A convicted felon cannot be a member of the militia at all under any militia act. I also don't see the quote you gave anywhere in the SCOTUS opinion. That said, I did see this in the opinion: "So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun 63*63 until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm." 114 Cong. Rec. 14773 (1968)." Can't agree to what I can't read in the SCOTUS decision. 7: Considering the acrimonious discussion and the above error, I'd suggest you sandbox your changes on your user page and solicit input on the changes. 8: Again, I suggest you sandbox your proposed changes and seek consensus. I suspect that you have something worthy to contribute, but the approach made only ended up in mutual antagonism. Sandboxed revisions can be discussed, worked on mutually and a consensus achieved that can improve the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

Wzrd1, I have tried a dozen times for months to do things that would seem uncontroversial in other articles, such as directly quoting from a Supreme Court decision. All my attempts have been unceremoniously reverted. I attempted dispute resolution here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_67#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution And it has been tried by others here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_28 Not to mention the many attempts on the talk page for several years going back.GreekParadise (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And there has been no attempt to address my arguments either. There's not a single article or scholar in the nation that would say the American people have an unlimited right to bear arms. Editors here (including unfortunately yourself) claim they can refute my highly sourced undisputed factual material with opinions of their own. I ask you to provide a single citation for any claims you make. I know of no court opinion, no scholar, no published work anywhere in the world that says that the American People have an unlimited right to bear arms. If they did, machine guns would be legal. So you can say what you wish, but a mere say-so has no weight. Of course, even if you found a citation to say that the Second Amendment does not contain the words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," that would not make it true. The claims I make are unexceptional and there are literally thousands of sources to back them up. The contrary claims are simply false and have no citations to back them up. Got a citation to dispute any of my eight points? Then I should be able to put them in with my citations and you could put in your contrary citations. That is the wikipedia way.

But just to prove to you that the editors here refuse to allow obviously accurate material to be added, I will go step by step. My first step will be to add a direct quote from a Supreme Court decision that the "keepers of this article" don't want people to know about. Think they will leave in a verbatim quote from a Supreme Court decision? They will not. They will revert it immediately. You watch.GreekParadise (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are setting up a straw man "the American people have an unlimited right to bear arms." which nobody here has said and which the article does not say (in fact it says the opposite) and insulting / attacking the editors here by pretending that they have said it, or making a smoke screen by pretending that the article says it.   Neither of which is the case.  So why don't you show us where the regular editors or the article says that there is an unlimited right to bear arms?


 * If you have an edit which you think would be controversial, you could either try it (a specific edit, not another carpet bomb) on a BRD basis (and "R" is common, not persecution) or discuss it here first. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you should have no problem if I add the word "limited" which I will do. I get it. People don't want to read of a dozen problems with the article. I can go one by one.  Baby steps.GreekParadise (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All rights are limited. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're missing a 2A related Scotus case, let's talk about it here because we'd want to get it in in a neutral enclyclopedic manner. Starting in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added Lewis v. United States (1980). I don't think this Supreme Court should be in the body of the article, precisely because so many editors here don't believe to be true what the Lewis case says about Miller. Editors here have claimed -- without a single source to back up these claims -- that the holding in Miller was considered by the courts to be ambiguous. In fact, Lewis -- and dozens of lower court decisions -- explain exactly how the Supreme Court and federal courts viewed Miller throughout the 20th Century. Until Heller, Miller was settled law.  And since the Supreme Court said so in 1980 -- and it did -- and all the lower courts said so from the 1940's to the 1990's -- and they did -- these facts should be included in the article notwithstanding the wish by some editors here and perhaps even some scholars who wish that the legal history of the Second Amendment had been different.  It is true Heller criticized this 60-year body of case law, and that should be pointed out as well.  But to pretend 60+ years of legal history did not happen is Orwellian.GreekParadise (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's focus instead of carpet bombing.  Are you saying that Lewis v. United States  is a 2A-related US Supreme Court case?    If so we should get it into the article.   The lead is a summary of what is in the body of the article and so the starting point would be the body of the article.


 * I added a direct quotation from Lewis which cited Miller for the proposition that I cited in the article. I'd be happy to edit the body, but as you know, no matter how well I source my statements, they are reverted. I will respect your wishes and add it to the body first. But I would ask that nothing be reverted unless you dispute either my sources or my characterization of my sources and you explain on the talk page prior to reverting.GreekParadise (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to my actual question which you just evaded, are you saying that Lewis v. United States is a 2A-related US Supreme Court case? North8000 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And if you want it in the body, you could have put it there. Your removal of a United States Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment without reviewing the case to see that it was in fact accurate is in bad faith. I would ask you respectfully to act in good faith by returning the citations of Lewis and the other eleven cases I cited in the footnote, if not to the header than at least to the body of the article, and that you not revert any future edits that you know to be accurately sourced.GreekParadise (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First, Lewis v. United States 445 U.S. 55 (1980) was not quite a second amendment case per se, it was regarding the prohibition of a convicted felon possessing a firearm which was a violation of 1202 (a) (1) of Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Pp. 60-68. Relevant in the decision, '"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun [445 U.S. 55, 63]  until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm.' 114 Cong. Rec. 14773 (1968)." Further discussion in the decision mentioned the remedies available to the convicted felon to remove his disability that were not attempted.
 * As for limited rights to the possession of firearms v unlimited, in the past, there were no limits. Indeed, artillery and firearms used by the southern states during the civil war were privately acquired weapons. The same was true of militias arms before the inception of the United States and continued intermittently and currently exists today, under the NFA tax stamp scheme. One can purchase an artillery piece even today, as well as fully automatic weapons and other destructive weapons by purchasing a BATFE tax stamp and passing the background investigation. The only realistic barrier that exists now is due to the Orwellian named Firearms Owner Protection Act, which banned the sales to civilians machineguns that were not registered before May 19, 1986 (that is the Orwellian part), though to be honest, I have no heartburn over that limitation. I just have a dislike when an act restricts a right when its title proclaims protection. As that is POV, I'd not ever consider adding such a POV to an article. As the law stands today, I can lawfully purchase an M4 or M16, M60 machinegun, M2 .50 caliber machinegun, mortar, artillery piece and the rounds to accompany said firearms. That I have no use for such things is irrelevant, that I lawfully could acquire said weapons is telling of limitations. The limitations come into effect when one is a convicted felon, substance abuser, insane, a subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, an illegal alien, a dishonorably discharged service member, a convicted domestic abuser, or under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction. Its all on Form 4473. The vast majority of the populace do not fit in those prohibited disabilities, so therefor can purchase a firearm and most of those can also pass an SSBI and acquire an NFA firearm if they do desire. As a point of fact, I personally own a dozen firearms, about half were inherited, the rest being competition firearms or hunting firearms, many of the inherited firearms are antique firearms, though one that I inherited was infamous self-disassembly upon firing.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting OR, Wzrd1. Of course it doesn't change what the Lewis Court said about Miller, but it is interesting. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise,I would have moved it except there was no Lewis material there. There was a Miller item that you described as Lewis, (again, out of context / without analysis so as to confuse it's meaning)   plus some POV characterization of ensuing years. North8000 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

North, you claim *I* misstated Miller "out of context/without analysis so as to confuse its meaning". But your complaint is not with me. It's with the Supreme Court. I directly quoted Lewis verbatim. So your real complaint is that the Supreme Court in Lewis misstated Miller "out of context/without analysis so as to confuse its meaning". And you have a right to say so. After we quote Lewis in the article, you can say that some commentators think Lewis misstated Miller. And then provide a source. (Even though I note that none of the nine justices disputed Lewis' rendition of Miller but four of the justices disputed Heller's rendition of Miller.) But the one thing you cannot do is refuse to include Lewis' statement of Miller just because you disagree with it. What did Lewis say about Miller in footnote 8? I will repeat it for the third time and keep repeating it until you acknowledge having read it, reviewed it in the original, and determined that I am quoting it accurately. Here is the full context:

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939) (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");"

Whether you agree or disagree with the Lewis Court's description of Miller is irrelevant. It happened. It has a right to be included in this article. Please read Lewis case: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/55/case.html GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Erm, let me get this right now. Whether Lewis was a second amendment case or not, it is a second amendment case. Lewis was a convicted felon who complained about the fact that convicted felons cannot possess firearms, but never at all invoked the second amendment at all, hence the case was of the law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms, which is only remotely second amendment related by two degrees in a court of law, which seems to also be irrelevant to you. Frankly, I don't know *where* you are coming from, as you come up with tangential cases that are not even remotely under the pleas second amendment cases, take one singular remark as the primary cause of the day and proceed boldly forth. You're a nice person, we can debate offline from Wikipedia, but you're beyond off base on Lewis. It was NOT a second amendment case, due to the pleas of both parties, hence a remark is only a remark, not an opinion of the court. Something the court itself remarked upon repeatedly over the centuries, though I'll admit to not have a citation available right now, as it's late, I'm exhausted and I must arise tomorrow morning to care for my elderly father. The fact remains, Lewis was NOT a second amendment case, incidental remarks do not make it so, per repeated case law. Do your own homework, I have no time to do it for you. Your view is fundamentally flawed, but somewhat correct based upon case law, but your POV is incorrect in general, as you do not know other items that were perfected in actual case law, since you consider incidental comments as case law, which they are most certainly not. It is annoying, true, it is inefficient, true. It is what we have to operate under and what is effective in a court of law, for better or worse.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wzrd1, can you check the second sentence in your post? I can't understand it / maybe has a typo.  North8000 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was as I intended, as the one party in this discussion wanted to make Lewis a second amendment case when it clearly was not a second amendment case, save for only one singular remark made by one SCOTUS jurist. In short, a remark upon circular logic that always ended up being an argument that the case itself never was, except in the mind of one person.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not one person. This was not a concurrence. This was the full opinion of the Supreme Court. Six justices agreed.  (And the other three in dissent did not dispute it either.) This should be unsurprising, as every one of the eleven circuit courts of appeal had the same opinion of Miller in 1980.


 * Actually it was a footnote, probably inserted by a law clerk, referring to another case that referred to Miller – very circular and definitely cannot be quoted. You are correct this was not a 2A case. It was a 5A case under the Due Process Clause issue about a supposed wrongful conviction. Neither 2A nor Miller were discussed. This is just another example of GreekParadise’s mischaracterization of his “reliable sources”. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Miller on individual right
GreekParadise you just took out of the lead that Miller is considered ambiguous on the question of individual right. This is far out of line for multiple reasons: North8000 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Folks on both sides of the debate agree that it is ambiguous
 * You said that the reason for deleting it from the lead is that it is unsourced. It IS sourced, in the body of the article. The sourcing is customarily not doubled up when it is summarized in the lead. If you want to call for the sourcing to be duplicated in the lead you can do so. But you can't just immediately zap the material from the lead based on that, doubly so when it clearly IS sourced in the article.
 * 3RR violation

1. There's no 3RR violation when I haven't edited 3 times in 24 hours. I've edited twice.

2. I contend that the United States Supreme Court and eleven appellate court decisions are a more reliable source on what the law was from 1930-99 than a weaselly claim by a law professor that contradicts a large body of case law, particularly a claim hidden in the body of the article.

3. But if you insist that a single law professor's dubious claim has more weight as to what the law was from 1939-99 than the United States Supreme Court and eleven appellate courts, then I am willing to submit a formal request to the reliable sources noticeboard. Let me know if I should proceed in that route. I will submit my dispute to the noticeboard if you continue to allow the word of one law professor in the article while refusing to allow in the article evidence from a dozen courts.GreekParadise (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now my contention is the article should be allowed to include a Supreme Court case (Lewis v. United States-1980) that characterized the Second Amendment and Miller. The first sentence you deleted was  In United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980), the Supreme Court described Miller 's holding as follows: '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.'"  We can dispute over where you think the case belongs (in the header or body of the article) later. But you have deleted the case entirely. So, assuming you agree I have accurately quoted the case verbatim, our first dispute is whether or not this case can appear anywhere in the article. If you agree it belongs, I'll begin by putting this sentence in the body. If you disagree, I will go to the reliable sources noticeboard for a resolution. But I will not make an edit or seek resolution for at least 24 hours to give you time to read the case and respond.GreekParadise (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If Lewis is a  2A-related United States Supreme Court case, let's start by neutrally getting it in. Extracting a quote out of context in a way that tends to change it's meaning is not good coverage and is mis-use of primary sources. I don't know about Lewis, but you were certainly doing that with Miller. Miller ruled on whether the "militia justification" forbade restrictions against certain types of firearms, and the court said "no". You are wanting to put a quote in out of context in a way that makes it look like they were ruling on the individual right route. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting interpretation of Miller, North. But contrary to all US court rulings from 1939-2000 and completely unsourced. What's your source?


 * My source is the United States Supreme Court in 1980 (United States v. Lewis, 455 US 55 footnote 8) -- see http://www.constitution.org/ussc/445-055a.htm -- and dozens of appellate court decisions in at least eleven circuit courts of appeal from the 1940's to the 1990's -- see cases I tried to add in a footnote in the article which you deleted. Every one of these cases hold, as the Supreme Court said in Lewis (and I'm quoting verbatim), that Miller held: "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.'" I want to quote this verbatim. The Supreme Court said it. And it's relevant. And it directly contradicts your unsourced claim. Can you find a single court case from 1939 to 2000 that confirms your description of the ruling in Miller? If so, name it. If not, I believe that this uncontradicted body of 60 years of US case law trumps your personal opinion.


 * You say you don't know about Lewis. Please read it. You'll see that your unsourced interpretation of Miller is simply not the way American courts at all levels (including the Supreme Court) viewed Miller for at least 60 years. You may not agree with how the Lewis court and other courts characterized Miller, but it's the contemporaneous Supreme Court and other courts opinions that matter when talking about legal history. Not yours or mine.  And not subsequent opinions either. If you want to say how Heller recharacterized Miller, go ahead. But that belongs in the Heller decision. Not the Miller decision. Five guys in black robes can change the law. But they have no power to change history.GreekParadise (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Once you read the Supreme Court opinion in Lewis and see that I have accurately quoted it, I would ask that you allow it to be included in the article. As I have long argued, an article that gives ample history from the 18th century but fails to include how the Second Amendment was uniformly interpreted by US Courts in the 20th century is simply not an accurate historical record.GreekParadise (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So far you have given one broken link the Lewis, and another to a source that doesn't even say it was a Scotus case, and doesn't support what you were trying to put in.
 * Context matters. Court of Appeals decisions saying that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right doesn't mean those decisions were correct. For almost 30 years, courts and police departments interpreted New York v. Belton (1981), as permitting police to search an arrestee's vehicle automatically. Despite this interpretation, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. Gant (2009), that this interpretation of Belton was wrong and that Belton was a much narrower decision. Heller did the same thing regarding Miller. To me, it seems you want to frame Heller as wrongfully repudiating the correct interpretation of Miller. That wouldn't be proper, any more than it would proper to put in the article that "the Courts of Appeals misinterpreted Miller as ...". I'm open to putting the Court of Appeals decisions you cite in a footnote together with material referring to those decisions. Under no circumstances should the article refer to those decisions as being correct or Heller being incorrect, or vice-versa. SMP0328. (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We are finally getting somewhere. :-) I strongly AGREE with you that "correct" is a subjective term that none of us should ever make in a wikipedia article. "Correct" in the law changes over time.  Segregation was "correct" after Plessy (1896) and incorrect after Brown (1954). All we can say objectively is what the law was at various dates in time, including the present. I do not and have never contended that the law in 1933 or 1980 was the same or should be the same as the law today. I do, however contend that in an article purporting to be about the history the Second Amendment, I have a right to say what the law was in 1933 and 1980. I would be happy to cite the Court of Appeals opinions in a footnote and summarize them in the text.  Indeed I have tried to do that at least a dozen times, but it always summarily reverted. Is this a compromise everyone can accept?  I summarize the Court of Appeal articles and Lewis and cite them in a footnote?GreekParadise (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no 2a challenge in Lewis. The case was about the constitutionally of a felony conviction. The obscure point is in a footnote referring to another case referring to Miller. IMO a far reach best summarized by Scalia:
 * "Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (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’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued."


 * I understand Scalia disagrees with the SCOTUS in Lewis. Indeed, it is precisely Scalia's disagreement with the SCOTUS footnote re Miller in Lewis that required him to write an opinion challenging it.  But the fact that Scalia does not like the SCOTUS opinion in Lewis does not mean that Lewis never existed. We should relate in a neutral verbatim quote what the Lewis court said in 1980 and then also relate what Heller said against Lewis 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

.
 * Regarding Miller – Scalia summarizes:
 * "Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that [collective only view]. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons"
 * Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I got it. Scalia disagrees with Lewis. But Lewis happened. Surely you are not contending we should never cite Second Amendment law that is not current law? Because if that's the case, we need to wipe out the vast body of legal history in this article that pre-dates the Heller decision in 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you don’t get it. Scalia didn’t disagree with Lewis – he pointed out that Lewis was not a 2A case – there was no argument about 2A or Miller and points out It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued. Where’s the retort to disruptions, misrepresentation and insults attributed to you? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptions, misrepresentation and insults
GreekParadise, each time you write it is a barrage of false accusations, misstatements of what people said, misstatements about what the article, mis characterizaiton of the points at hand. And you trying to structure it so that failure to refute each point each time you paste it in (conveniently "forgetting" that it has been refuted multiple times) again and again is a license to put your highly POV's statement in the article. I'm tired of all of the above, and I'm sure other are two. Please STOP! North8000 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to personally attack me, you're going to have to name the misstatements you claim I have made. I'm tired of this too. For months, I have been trying to include accurate information in this article. And for months I've been told that undisputed case law will NOT be allowed in the article while certain unsourced highly-biased opinions of various editors will be claimed as fact. I contend that under wikipedia policy, you cannot reject accurate well-sourced information just because it makes an article balanced. It's a crazy article. It spends pages and pages on the 17th and 18th Centuries that pre-dated the Second Amendment itself (and are therefore arguably irrelevant) while refusing to allow the consensus of the courts for at least 60 years in the 20th Century to be mentioned! Yet, I have not attempted once to remove the 17th Century information. I have merely tried to include the 20th Century information and been rebuffed on the surprising claim that I'm not allowed to cite the Supreme Court of the United States and eleven appellate courts and the Library of Congress and the New York Times. Editors here claim the verbatim language of the United States Supreme Court can't be cited because it's POV, but a single NRA "hired-gun" may be cited as accurate without naming the source or qualifying the bias! If you continue this silliness, we will have to end up in formal mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try once again at compromise. North, I have two very simple questions that I believe you can answer yes or no:

1) Have you read footnote 8 of the Supreme Court in Miller? (455 US 55)

2) Do you agree that I quoted accurately verbatim from the case?

Please, in good faith, answer these questions. If the answers are both yes, please explain why you refuse to include the quotation from Lewis about Miller. If you've been unable to find a working link to the case, I would be willing to post the entire case on the talk page. Should be unnecessary, though, because the link I provided works for most of you. But if someone asks me to post the entire case, I will. If you have not read the case, I would ask you to cease commenting on the case or removing it from the article until you've read it.

Unless Lewis is allowed to be quoted verbatim, I will do a RfC on whether or not a Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment may be cited in a very long article on the Second Amendment that mentions virtually every other Supreme Court case on the issue.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Lewis see Miller on individual right above.
 * Regarding Disruptions, misrepresentation and insults - here is a list of the comments that you have made in the last week:


 * "IN SUM, PLEASE IGNORE THIS ARTICLE. It is inaccurate and the editors here refuse to allow it to be accurate"


 * "The article is bullshit. Do not read it".


 * "I tried mediation but it was rejected by those pushing the NRA-POV here"


 * "North's opinion has no weight in wikipedia"


 * "and the others are lying?"


 * "Unscrupulous editors"


 * "discipline these charlatans"


 * "You are exactly what is wrong with wikipedia"


 * "Until you know what the hell you are talking about, you have no right to comment here"


 * PLEASE Stop. Grahamboat (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also discussion relevant to this at my talk page. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Limited right
Currently the article cites Heller for the proposition: "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". No one has disputed that this is current law. Therefore, I changed the first sentence in the header to note the right is limited. After all, the synthesis in the first line should reflect the truth as cited in the article. Miguel Escopeta claims that this limitation from the Heller opinion is "original research" and he removed it. If you agree with me that a holding of the Supreme Court is not original research -- please undo Miguel's unsourced reversion.

If no one discusses or undoes this change in 24 hours, I will begin a formal request for comment solely on the topic of whether a formal decision of the Supreme Court trumps an editor's unsourced private opinion.GreekParadise (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your use of "limited" is redundant, because the quote from Heller in the Introduction says the right is "not unlimited". SMP0328. (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is the Second Amendment does not protect "the" right to bear arms. What source says that? Such a weasel word begs the question: what "right to keep and bear arms"? Surely not the right described by Aristotle and Cicero in the wikipedia article that it links to. Heller says the right is qualified, i.e. a limited right for some people to keep and bear certain arms as defined by the Supreme Court. Even if the first sentence is a synthesis, it has to be accurate. Miguel's claim that Heller is "original research" is clearly wrong. Please show some good faith by allowing a word you concede is accurate into the article (that was accepted in this sentence last March). If the first sentence is not a synthesis but is redundant then let's remove the whole thing and say: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights." Then we can remove a heckuva lot more redundant words than "limited." And the sentence would remain indisputably accurate. If you feel you cannot compromise by allowing an accurate first sentence, I will add a disputed tag to the first sentence and begin my first RfC on this first sentence.GreekParadise (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In sum, I'm willing to accept in the first sentence:

a limited right to bear arms

or

a qualified right for some people to keep and bear arms

or

no mention of bearing arms at all

or

a restatement of the Second Amendment (i.e. "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"

I'm not willing to accept that the Second Amendment protects "the" (undefined) right to bear arms with a link to what Aristotle and Cicero had to say about it. That is inaccurate and unsourced original research. No court has ever found that to be true. Aristotle did not determine the scope of the Second Amendment.GreekParadise (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After much hard work and compromise there was a consensus reached on this back in March (see Archive 35) . You chose not to participate at that time. It is not fair that you ask us to rehash this issue. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong, we had a consensus in February and it was changed from a truthful statement to a statement that implies the right is unlimited. I disagree with the change. Are you denying the right is limited?GreekParadise (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, its also a given that no right is unlimited and unconditional. We can say "right to vote".   We don't have to say "a limited right for some people to vote" because its only people who are registered, not convicted felons, at least 18 years old, US citizens etc. etc.  North8000 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Every right has preconditions attached to them. I have the right to free speech, save for seditious speech, treasonous speech or speech designed to spur imminent lawless action. More simply, I can speak my mind until I make speech designed to overthrow the government, make actual plans to overthrow the government or something insane, such as drop the "N-bomb" at an NAACP convention. I have the right to keep and bear arms, however, I do not have the right to carry a firearm onto federal property, including the White House. I do not have the right to open carry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the streets of a city of the first class, of which there is only one in the Commonwealth, Philadelphia. I can open carry everywhere else in the Commonwealth. Though, I'd make the acquaintance of every law enforcement officer I'd pass through doing so. I have the right to worship as I choose, however, I may not make a human sacrifice. Once registered to vote, as I am not a convicted felon, am over the age of 18 and was born in this nation, I have the right to vote, be it for "Buggs Bunny" or even myself. Indeed, in my area, there was a "conspiracy" to elect a state representative that was a republican, but even the democrats worked to elect one republican young man who was controversial in that he was also serving in the National Guard, something that the democratic party of the county objected to and was told to sod off by the populace. As he was deployed, he was unable to be duly entered in time for the ballot. He was hand written in by the majority of the voters of both parties and now remains seated in the state assembly. Every right has its limitations. Some of the examples I listed are obviously outlandish, but are also well defined in case law.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * rights are unlimited and are intelligently outside the reach of government. People confuse rights with things that appear similar at first blush but which are not covered under the right.....spuriously yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening someone with physical harm has never fallen under the protection of free speech.  It's not a limit on the right.....nobody has a right to assault another and it's inane that some call such assaults as alimit on free speech!  A careful scrutiny of the arguments by those who claim that rights are limited reveals faulty logic.  I am free to yell fire at the top of my lungs while alone in the middle of my 3,000 acre ranch in Montana but that is not freedom of speech because nobody is there to listen.  I most certainly don't have a right to such a declaration in a crowded theater if a fire threat is not present  and that limit is not a denial of free speech nor is it a limit on free speech it is an assertion of the rights of others to not be assaulted, but I most certainly have a right to yell fire if a fire is present and I also have a right to say nothing! scary as that may sound....i am bound by no duty to act unless i am duly deputized.  Freedom of speech is all about freedom to voice political opinions or offer any opinion in public settings without fear of repercussion from the government or threats from others.  Similarly if I'm hiking in a remote area in alaska, I have a right to self defense and in that instance I would only feel safe with a SW500 or similar revolver And a competent high powered rifle given the very dangerous fauna....to deny me or limit that ability to bear arms is a grave transgression on my rights and indeed endangers me. To limit me in bullet caliber or capacity or firearm in that setting is a threat to me and unconstitutional! Similarly if I'm traveling cross country on the interstate, I feel a need to be armed, probably with something more discrete than a SW500 perhaps a PPK or something bigger if im going through wild territory but i dont have a right to scare every gas station teller on I10 with a rocket launcher but i most certainly have a right to be armed, no telling if I might break down at night and or who might stop....to deny me that is to endanger me and society has no power to deny me that right nor to endanger me.  Bill Cosby's son was shot by lawless people when his car broke down on the 405 interstate in los angeles at 1am.....one of the busiest roads in the US in a state with very tight gun laws! I can understand that a bar owner might not want drunks with guns in his bar, and he has a right as a private property owner to keep people out but, out in public, i have a right to bear arms as needed to defend myself.  Wherever i can legally exist, i have a right to bear arms.  at the NRA gathering i carry my locked and cocked 1911 in a very nice holster proudly open carrying but im not going to wear that gettup to the local mall in the summer, id likely scare to death the soccer moms and all the 13 year old teeny boppers - disturbing the peace comes to mind.  i dont have a right to scare people but discretely carrying a very small .380 in a pocket is very reasonable particularly if im a store manager for a jewelry store at that mall and i have to clse my shop late at night, deal with money, and hav to walk a huge parking lot late at night in a deteriorating part of town..  When politically active well meaning but, ignorant people deny us our rights they both oppress us and endanger us.  If you want to go unarmed, please by all means, but don't come on here and try to massage the meaning of the text, the amendment text is very clear.  Sorry for the long post bu it's important to clarify that many of the so called limits on our rights are not limits at all bu rather fallacies in logic.  Justanonymous (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% and your post is worthy of posting on my wall. But here we're dealing on a more mundane level.  An amendment is basically a prohibition against the government restricting a certain freedom. And the definition of that freedomn is not infinite North8000 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You confuse the first amendment right of freedom of expression as a limitless right, where it is quite plainly limited by the examples you gave. You have no right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no such danger exists, that is risking the lives of others in the ensuing panic. You have no right to make speech designed to spur imminent lawless action, such as shouting racial epithets at an NAACP convention. You have no right to make speech to overthrow your government, that is sedition. You have no right to make speech in planning the overthrow your government in an imminent way, such as planning an attack, that is treason. As for Alaska, I'd stick with my 45-70 rifle, it's more than sufficient for dangerous game. I did consider getting a BFR 45-70, but I'm far too attached to my hand and prefer it where it is currently located. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, one may not drink in a bar while carrying a firearm, concealed or open carry (open carry is prohibited in Cities of the First Class, of which Pennsylvania has only one, Philadelphia). You are prohibited in every state under federal law from possessing a firearm on a K-12 school property. Many states prohibit the possession of a firearm inside of a church or similar religious structure. That said, the restrictions on what kind of firearm one may lawfully own under federal law are few, one can purchase that rocket launcher under the NFA. That said, some states do prohibit NFA firearms, many do not. Rights do have limitations to ensure the peace and safety of the public, whether they are enumerated rights or common law rights.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the examples you cite are not examples of free speech. It's not free speech to spuriously yell fire in a crowded theater, never has been and its not a limit on the right either. They are actually infringements on the rights of others and in some cases crime. The right is limited but it is about political speech not driving cars, it is bound by the common language.. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets all remember this is not a forum J8079s (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * J8079, quite true, but it is a contentious subject and requires elaboration on. Under Justanonymous notions, the civil war was predicted upon free speech and ignores how it was first seditious speech, then later, treasonous speech. The speaker ignores the reality of both case law and overall reality in the attempt to accomplish a single right that is not encumbered, while also admitting to the fact that said right is encumbered. Sorry, but one cannot both HAVE the cake and EAT it. They are mutually exclusive practices.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "right" is ambiguous. For example, sometimes it means an entitlement which compels other people to do stuff so that I can have it (e.g. a "right" to an education or medical care). In the case of this amendment (as with most of the constitution) we are talking about restrictions of governmental action. And the defined protected or partially protected behavior or condition is called a right. It is taken as a give no "right"  is unlimited and unconditional. If you add unusual qualifiers to it (e.g. say "The right of certain people under certain conditions to vote" instead of "right to vote") you are particularly denigrating the statement of that right, which is what a POV warrior is trying to do here. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed, the bill of rights was put there as a no go area from government interference and the list of rights is not comprehensive, government overreach was a great concern to the founders....if the government is curtailing it, it's not a right or the government is engaged in unconstitutional actions. It's like saying I have a right to privacy except when the sheriff decides to drop by or that you have a right to free speech without retribution except when the IRS decides otherwise or that you have a right to remain silent except when the fbi questions you.  As it stands, i have a right to keep and bear arms except when in illinois, When traveling between some states, or in my home in some states (notably chicago, dc, until very recently)? Ludicrous.  That IS government overreach.  I'm not of the mind that rights are ambigous....provided my actions are not depriving another of a right, then I am free to do that action (silly tenous contortions of logic do not apply like suggesting that choices make me unhealthy.).  I can wear a cross in public as a display of my faith and I can drink a 64oz big gulp.  Limits on rights ARE infringement and unconstitutional.  Government's primary reason for existence is to protect rights not to curtail them! Justanonymous (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we all agree the right has been limited by the Supreme Court. Therefore we all agree that the first sentence which implies the right is unlimited is false at least in its implication. In March, we discussed using the word "involves" the right to bear arms since it is a neutral term. I would support "involves" if we cannot agree on "limited." Or I would support paralleling what we did with other Bills of Rights -- simply paraphrasing the entire Amendment.GreekParadise (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * no we don't agree. The other amendments' descriptions in Wikipedia are similarly tightly worded.  All of this has been hashed ad nauseum with GreekParadise and the discussions are in the archives. The correct wording is prohibits government or protects but not the verbal contortions GreekParadise is advocating.Justanonymous (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS is the supreme authority on what the constitution means. They have said explicitly "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" Gaijin42 (talk)


 * GreekParadise regarding your claim “Wrong, we had a consensus in February and it was changed from a truthful statement to a statement that implies the right is unlimited” [GreekParadise (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)] you must be dreaming, as there was never a consensus on the use of “involves” in February. Perhaps, that is our current problem – you don’t know what a consensus is. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court description of the Miller case in a published opinion in 1980 (Lewis) a reliable source for how the Supreme Court viewed Miller in 1980?
For six months, editors have, for whatever reason, struck all reliable relevant neutral sources quoted verbatim that I have provided. Many have speculated on why only one extremely biased POV is allowed to be presented here. Others have speculated that citing reliable relevant sources verbatim is an unfair tactic on my part. But I believe it's best for both sides to ignore intentions and start with logic. Because we've disagreed for six months on dozens of issues, I believe we should start out by stating our disagreements very simply.

Let's start with a tautology, the simplest question in all of logic. Does A=A? Here's the question I pose:

Is the Supreme Court description of the Miller case in 1980 a reliable source for the state of the law re the Supreme Court's legal interpretation of Miller in 1980?

I contend it is.

Most of the editors on this board appear to contend it is not. Grahamboat, for example, claims the Supreme Court citation of Miller was "probably inserted by a law clerk" and therefore unquotable. I contend a published opinion of the United States Supreme Court in 1980 is a better source for the view of the Supreme Court in 1980 than Grahamboat's completely unsourced rank speculation that the US Supreme Court did not mean what they wrote.

Please state whether you agree with Grahamboat or me. If you agree that a 1980 SCOTUS opinion is a good reliable source for the opinion of the SCOTUS in 1980, then I will cite the case. If you disagree, I will forward this issue to the reliable source noticeboard and/or a request for comment.GreekParadise (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that "reasonable relationship to a militia" means "collective-only right" is original research. An individual right may (by some) be considered to have a reasonable relationship, as (legally, and historically) the militia is everyone, and would need to be armed to be useful. Heller specifically said that it did not overturn Miller. Is not in conflict with Miller. Further says there is an individual right. Therefore, with SCOTUS being the supreme authority for the constitution, and their own opinions, Miller does not rule for a collective-only right, otherwise Heller would be overturning Miller. A footnote quoting Miller does not give any insight into what the quote from Miller means( and further, a footnote carries no legal weight whatsoever). Lewis says nothing that wasn't word for word in Miller. Repating an ambiguous statement does not clear up ambiguity.  "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) 14:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus this thread is a tangent with false implied premises. Lewis was not a 2A case and did not rule on 2A/individual right. Even sources which extensively examined Scotus during this period (e.g. extensive Congressional Research Service source) do not even mention Lewis! This is GP's creative crusade, not something from sources. This is getting disruptive. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Lewis was not a 2A case it was a 5A case. Neither Miller nor 2A were argued in Lewis. The cases that were discussed were: Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 422 (1974), quoting from McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270 (1973), and Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111 (1966). See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979).[8]  In none of those cases was Miller or 2A discussed. Trying to hammer in an excerpt from a footnote implying the Lewis court concurred with Miller is ludicrous – not worthy of consideration and definitely too POV for Wikipedia. BTW I noticed you have not responded to your own request to name any disruptions, misrepresentation and insults that you made. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

also, your interpretation of Miller is refuted by SCOTUS again in Printz "The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * agree with my esteemed editors Gaijin42, Grahamboat, North8000 and I applaud their civility in patiently refuting months/years of attempted agenda driven editing. GreekParadise, please no more tautologies or 10,000byte entries.  The group has been very patient and they actually study all sides of this vs just the one side you want to drive. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?
I see that GreekParadise removed the POV tag from the article. Does this mean we have a consensus that the article is not biased? This wouldn't mean that any of us think the article is perfect. It would be a big step for the dispute about neutrality to be resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the POV tag at the top of the article. It was forcibly removed against my will. On several occasions. I tried in good faith to edit a small portion at the bottom and removed the POV tag while I made one last attempt to act in good faith. But as usual, my own reliable sources were unceremoniously reverted without any reason given (because editors here continue to sadly believe their personal opinion trumps the findings of the Supreme Court and other reliable sources).


 * This article is hopelessly biased. I will replace the tag and ask that it not be removed again absent formal mediation, which I support. You're simply not supposed to remove the POV tag without addressing in good faith the issues of extreme bias I have repeatedly brought up for more than six months on the talk pages.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe we had a consensus since the end of March 2013. This latest rehash presented nothing new. Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit and you know it. It's not a consensus when you stifle debate and forcibly prevent factual material from being presented.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose then this talk page be archived, we turn the page on this latest and greatest 2nd amendment kerfuffle, and set up with a new talk page. 10stone5 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed auto-archiving to 14 days (from 45). That gives enough time to confirm that we have consensus and it prevents the need to unarchive if it turns out we don't have consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I won't repeat the above. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No consensus. Just railroading.  As usual. I'll try to remember every 14 days to repeat my warning to all who read this article that it is hopelessly biased.  If only you folks had been willing to address my arguments or go to mediation or just allow me to cite undisputable sources, this wouldn't happen. Instead the article is a hopeless failure and every reader should know it is completely unreliable.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WARNING TO ALL WHO READ THIS ARTICLE: IT IS PROPAGANDA. Editors here refuse to allow undisputed sources to be presented when they interfere with their personal and false narrative of how they wish history had been. They are trying to claim that the new post-2008 interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been the law in America. That claim is irrefutably false.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSENSUS ON THIS ARTICLE FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. Check out the talk pages. Indeed, THIS ARTICLE IS THE SINGLE MOST BIASED ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ IN WIKIPEDIA. The editors have acted in extreme bad faith. In wikipedia, you are supposed to assume good faith until proven otherwise. But after six months of these editors refusing to allow to be cited any eminently reliable sources such as the Supreme Court itself(!), dozens of lower court opinions, the text of the Second Amendment(!) or reportage of the New York Times that does not fit in with their propaganda, I have no choice but to be absolutely clear they are acting in bad faith.

If you read the talk pages, you will see that for five years before my attempts for six months since January, these particular editors have worked very hard trying to rewrite history. Don't let them. DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE. I have cited dozens of Supreme Court case law and lower court cases objectively showing that prior to 2008, the Second Amendment was strictly construed to protect only people serving in a militia. But these editors don't want you to know that is undisputed fact. They reduce almost a century of legal history into a part of a sentence hidden at the end of a long article. In their view, the entire 20th Century legal history of the Second Amendment deserves half a sentence (which I fought strenuously to include) while the article devotes dozens of paragraphs pages to an irrelevant discussion of history prior to the Second Amendment that has little or nothing to with it but serves to support their narrative of what they wish the Second Amendment said, rather than it what it actually says.

Editors have repeatedly removed unrefutable citations dozens of times when it did not fit their propaganda. Even the noticeboard has condemned their actions -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_151 -- in refusing to allow even a United States Supreme Court decision to be reported if it disagreed with their personal agendas.

Want to know the legal history of the Second Amendment? DON'T READ THE PROPAGANDA PORTRAYED HERE. Here's the truth about the Second Amendment: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html. This is one of the articles they rejected. They only allow commentators who oppose gun regulations to be cited in this article, not legal historians who point out the obvious: that the Supreme Court, every US President and even a conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Warren Burger) once thought the ideas presented in this article with a straight face as if it were always the law for hundreds of years emphatically rejected this article's conclusion.  In fact Burger specifically mocked the propaganda theories presented here as a "fraud." But you won't find his quote in this article. I have tried more than 100 times to cite facts like this and dozens of cases and the Library of Congress and the New York Times. The fact that I have given up any hope of any editor acting to achieve consensus in good faith does not mean anything in this article is true or fair or accurate or a consensus.

According to these editors, the entire body of law 200 years before 2008 must be censored from this article, except as stated falsely from the mouths of NRA-hired commentators. But the truth censored from this article by these editors-with-an-agenda is undisputable: Prior to 2000, Federal Law held that the Second Amendment means exactly what its language says: that because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in service to that well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. It did not then -- and does not now -- guarantee an unlimited right for any person (particularly not the insane and the violent felon) to bear arms.

This legal view -- which the editors refuse to allow to be described to you in the current article -- was the solid view of the Supreme Court, the lower courts, American Presidents, American Congresses, and the vast majority of legal scholars from 1791 to 2008. It is the current view of four of the nine justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court. If one of the majority five resigns, it will again be current law. But sadly you would not know this highly pertinent fact from reading the extremely biased propaganda in this article.

This article is proof -- if ever you need any -- that wikipedia is a failure when it comes to hotly contested issues. I had thought you could simply present "both sides of a controversy" with each side sharing its sources. I would share my Supreme Court cases and Library of Congress cases and they would share the opinion of some NRA-bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece at some obscure university and we'd be done. But I was not aware they could simply delete my reliable sources on the grounds that they do not personally "agree with" the Supreme Court or the New York Times or the Library of Congress.

In sum, a determined group of editors can keep out a fact that is undisputedly true just to serve their own biased agenda and there is nothing that wikipedia editors can do about it. Indeed, these same editors could write the earth was flat and no one could stop them.

I strenuously object to this nonsense and propose formal mediation. But there's no point in going around in circles for months. All of these editors believe that reliable sources should be deleted if it doesn't fit their personal agendas. And I say ALL reliable relevant sources should be included. We will sadly never agree. But it's not for my lack of trying.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
For reasons I state above and elsewhere on this talk page, I suggest that any reader that wants to be well-informed about the legal history of the Second Amendment avoid the nonsense provided here. The sources here are misused. Editors cite their personal opinion and claim it is sourced when it is not. And reliable sources have been deleted. All to claim that the Second Amendment has never changed when it fact it has. For a good short article on actual history of the Second Amendment, read this: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.htmlGreekParadise (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have continuously tried to work with you. Yet you seem to believe that consensus means we unconditionally surrender to your belief that the article should be about how Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided. That won't happen. The fact that the article doesn't perfectly reflect your opinion does not mean the article is biased. Wikipedia functions on consensus. It looked like we had consensus. We found a way for you to add your desired reference to preHeller Court of Appeals decisions. So why do you return to ranting about the article being biased and attacking fellow editors? SMP0328. (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have NEVER once asked you to say Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided. You can look at pages and pages of what I have said for six months and you will never once find me saying that. I dare you to find that. I want you to search for it. And when you can't find it (because I never said it), I believe you owe me an apology. Apologize to me for this personal attack and we might actually be able to work together. You can fight all the straw men you want. But I'm not that straw men, and unless and until you address my actual arguments, we will get nowhere.

I have only asked (repeatedly) that I be allowed to state the law as it existed from 1939-2008. I do NOT want my opinion mentioned. I want THE LAW mentioned. Your determination to hide the actual law from the reader as it existed in the Twentieth Century is the essence of our dispute.

I will lay out in detail all the many biases I see in this exceptionally biased article.GreekParadise (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested several different versions, but nothing I suggest has been accepted, including direct quotations from the United States Supreme Court, because editors don't want YOU the reader to know the true legal history of the amendment. Here's one version of many I proposed of how the beginning of the article should read if reliable sources were allowed to be included. (Frankly, as written, it is biased in favor of the individual rights theory because I've seen no reliable evidence any court seriously entertained this theory until the 21st century. But I claim that people have disagreed for two centuries. Someone will need a source to show that anyone argued the individual rights theory two hundred years ago) 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.

There are a myriad of problems with the current article. They've been discussed at length for years and no consensus was reached. I'll keep repeating them so that people who read the talk page will have an idea as to why the entire article is faulty. Also these can serve as points for mediation. I recognize after six months of concerted effort that nothing I write will be even read, much less taken seriously, no matter how many sources I cite. So I officially give up but will continue to post this warning so that no one actually takes this article seriously unless and until it's formally mediated.


 * First Paragraph - false; not what Amendment says and not what it does. Everyone agrees it is a limited right but pro-gun folk refuse to allow this basic fact to be in the lede. Nor will they allow a simple citation of the Amendment. Nor will they allow the neutral word "concerns."


 * Second Paragraph - irrelevant opinions of editors; no source cited - no proof that Second Amendment was based on Blackstone. A commentator's view should not form the second paragraph of the article. The actual legal history of the Second Amendment excluded from this piece is more important than what some commentator believes about its prehistory


 * Third paragraph - Should say what Cruikshank actually held. These editors love to quote Supreme Court dicta to suggest a narrative. But the ruling is more important: we need to say what the case did. The Court "upheld a state's restriction on firearm possession." This fact has been removed dozens of times despite it being undisputedly true.


 * Fourth paragraph on Miller is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and these editors know it. That was not the holding of the case. Plus there was no debate afterwards. It was settled law for almost 70 years and cited dozens of times by lower courts and the Supreme Court to state emphatically that it meant you had to serve in a milita to get the protections of the Amendment. This may be Scalia's view of Miller, but it is not what the Miller court said or how it was interpreted from 1939-2008. That was not the holding nor the language of Miller. This is the most intellectually dishonest paragraph in the entire article.


 * Fifth Paragraph - Should mention the Lewis decision proving that the Supreme Court REJECTED the personal opinion of the editors in the Fourth Paragraph above


 * Sixth Paragraph - Fails to mention that Heller overturned this prior body of law (which is why it was a landmark case) by being first case to establish individual right. You can say that the case denied it was overturning Miller, but you cannot deny it changed the law.


 * Seventh Paragraph - should point out it was new right overturning Cruikshank


 * LONG DISCUSSION PRE-RATIFICATION
 * This at best should be a separate section. Lots of pro-gun scholars views but the scholars who believe in strict construction of the Second Amendment's militia clause are not represented at all. This is an interpretation of history and not fact. It's way too long, particularly when you give the post-Miller period less than one sentence. How the Courts interpreted the Second Amendment is far more reputable than how a few scholars believe it was constructed. Other scholars disagree.


 * Facts should be here rather than opinion. For example, in the Whiskey Rebellion, President George Washington made clear that he did NOT believe that people had the right to keep and bear arms against the Federal Government.  This is a fact, not supposition. It is not in the article, but all these NRA-scholars are.  Strong proof of bias.


 * SO-CALLED "SCHOLARLY COMMENTARY"
 * This of course is nothing of the sort. The article only has  NRA-scholars. None that advocate reasonable gun regulation. It repeatedly cites Heller as if it were scholarly commentary! But it doesn't  cite the many scholars who opposed Heller and supported Miller.  Extreme proof of bias in article.


 * SUPREME COURT CASES
 * Now we're getting somewhere. Deep in the article you finally begin to start mentioning the actual legal interpretation. But again hopeless bias.  You should say what the cases said and how they were viewed and interpreted CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.  Not what five justices in 2008 claim they meant (disregarding the 100's of jurists that disagreed).  The Miller case is particularly absent of its very important language. Here's what it should say


 * Miller was a unanimous Supreme Court case that held the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution "must be interpreted and applied" with its "obvious purpose" in view: "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the Militia. The Court found therefor that the Second Amendment does not "guarantee[] the right to keep and bear" a firearm that has no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


 * This should be in the article. Failure to include it is evidence of the bias replete in this article.


 * On Heller, the article should point out that the dissent argued that the 70-year-body of law since Miller should remain undisturbed. That would show you're not hiding this very real view of the law -- established law in the 20th Century (that will likely become the law again if one of the five-justice majority is replaced)


 * BEFORE HELLER -- Interesting how 200 years of law and dozens of cases get a single small disparaging paragraph by a commentator rather than the actual holding of the US Courts for 70 years. (This is all I get after six months of fighting for detailed mention of the law pre-Heller?)


 * Then there's a second paragraph on Emerson, the one and only case pre-Heller that disagreed with Miller. Get it?  One paragraph on the hundreds of cases that found one way (including the Supreme Court in Lewis but it's not mentioned here at all!).  And one paragraph on the one lone case 60 years later that found the other way.  That's like, in an article on the Supreme Court giving a single paragraph on hundreds of justices and a second paragraph on Antonin Scalia. Seems biased to me. There should at least be mention of how Emerson disagreed with 60 years of dozens of cases, including the Supreme Court in Miller and Lewis.


 * AFTER HELLER --
 * Lots of paragraphs post-2008. Of course. As if the legal history of the Second Amendment began five years ago. Silly obvious bias.


 * IN CONCLUSION -- This article devotes at least fifty paragraphs to mostly irrelevant information predating the Second Amendment, at least fifty paragraphs to pro-gun commentators, and at least fifty paragraphs to the law post-2008. But the law from 1791 to 2008 gets short shrift. And the entire law in the Twentiety Century for seventy years from 1939-2008 gets barely a paragraph and only a disparaging one at that. Hardly NPOV.

For all these reasons -- and sadly many others -- this article is a waste of your time if you're trying to get a fair and balanced view of the legal history of the Second Amendment that follows wikipedia rules.

If, however, you want the "NRA view of the Second Amendment," feel free to read this article. Indeed, I'd have no problem if this article were simply titled such. I believe a new article on the Second Amendment legal history should be written that allows all reliable sources to be cited, including prior case law that disagrees with the current opinion of five justices of the Supreme Court. It would allow scholars from both camps to be represented: the pro-gun regulation camp (strict constructionist view that every word of the Second Amendment, including the militia clause, has meaning) and the anti-gun regulation camp (the individual rights interpretation that holds the Second Amendment's militia clause should be ignored as irrelevant surplus language). The new article could then cite to this old one when asked for "History of the Second Amendment as Described by Those Who Oppose Any Gun Regulation" and perhaps there would also be, to be fair a "History of the Second Amendment as Described by Those Who Support Some Gun Regulation" that would point out, for example, all the citations to the militia in the ratification debates rather than the current (typically unsourced!) view that it was a "personal right".

This will sadly never happen. For that to happen, it would require a dedicated group of editors committed to upholding wikipedia's principles of neutrality, respect for reliable sources, and avoidance of original research and personal opinion. Such editors are not yet working on this article. But one day, I hope they will.

I formally request mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Congressional Research Service says, p. 1, "On the other end of the spectrum is the "collective right model" which interprets the Second Amendment as protecting the authority of the states to maintain a formal organized militia." That is not the same as saying it is a "right to service in a well regulated militia ", which would be an individual right.  TFD (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD It is perhaps enlightening to look at the dissent of Heller, where the dissenters did not argue a true collective right, but all went with the "limited individual rights" model. (In two separate dissents, in which all 4 dissenting judges signed) "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." and "“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.". In essence, the court unanimously ruled that it is an individual right, but differed on the scope of that right. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think GreekParadise is not clear on this. As the article says, "The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia."  IOW it reads the amendment as saying, "The right of each state to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed."  TFD (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should clarify what (right or wrong) the the short hand meanings we have been using here. "Collective right" has been meaning "militia-related right"  and "individual right" has been meaning "right unrelated to militia".    And sometimes "collective right" has meant "collective right only". North8000 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A militia-related individual right is different from a collective right, so calling it one is confusing. TFD (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The right to serve in a militia, or having the right significantly limited by relation to militia service is the "limited individual model" (dissent in Heller) vs the full individual "standard model" (endorsed by the majority in heller). The true collective right is the right of states to have a militia but no right enforceable by an individual. The true collective model was last given (afaik) in the oral arguments in Emerson, where the govt argued that the govt could even dismiss the state militia, as the collective right to a militia was fulfilled by the national guard. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Include Prior Law?
Currently the article spends several pages stating the law as it existed prior to the Second Amendment being ratified and several more pages on legal commentary, but it only gives one short disparaging paragraph hidden at the end of the article to the law as it existed between the Miller decision of 1939 and the Heller decision of 2008. Citations to Supreme Court and appellate court decisions from 1939-2008 been deleted as well as information from articles such as this one stating how it was the prevailing view of the time: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html. The article pretends that there was never disagreement about the Second Amendment's militia clause rather than clearly stating the two schools.

1) Should we (A) state the law as it existed from 1939-2008 and cite the post-2008 law as well? Or (B) should we ignore all prior law that conflicts with current law?

2) Should we (A) fairly state the militia v individual rights controversy? Or (B) only state the individual rights theory on the grounds that the individual rights theory has been the law since 2008 and therefore the older theory should be excluded from the article?GreekParadise (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording is too faulty to be anywhere near viable. it includes huge false assertions as implied premises, clearly-false assertions about the current state in its opening paragraph, argues against non-existent straw men and straw man mis-summaries of the actual points made. And it has no specific requested edit, it seems to be seeking some vague cart-Blanche. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * suggest speedy close I agree with the carte blance issue north8000 raises, and think that DR is a better venue for resolution. Since this RFC will force the DR to be automatically closed, I suggest we close this, so that the DR can proceed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The issues involved are too complex for an RfC. DR would be better, but will not be accepted if the RfC is open.  So I suggest GreekParadise close the RfC to allow DR.  TFD (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Added the disputed template to the top of the article
Hopefully, potential editors will go to the link to this talk page before editing.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead
The Manual of Style clearly states what should and should not be in the Lead of an article. Aside from the concept that this article should be encyclopedic entry that talks "about" the 2nd Amendment (its origin, its history, and such), the rest of the rhetoric associated with it should be kept to a minimum. Yes, the controversies, the court cases, public outcry, the NRA, the Brady Center, and the like should be mentioned, but why any of them deserve more than a sentence or paragraph (linked to their INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES) confounds me.

This article should be just be about the 2nd Amendment. Every issue (gun control, gun rights, school shootings, etc.) has its own article and rightly so because the issues are just too varied, complex, and numerous for one article. Please stop trying to make this article a collection of every subject on the matter. There's a reason that this article is "A delisted good article." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To tell the truth, I was quite annoyed to see that the article was delisted WP:GA. I wonder if it would be a good idea to gain consensus on reverting back to the version that was listed as a GA again.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your belief that the Introduction violates MOS should be brought here before you make any changes to the Introduction. This is a disputed article, so consensus should be reached regarding any changes that are not minor. You basically are trying to rewrite the Introduction, so your edits are not minor. SMP0328. (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It does violate the MOS, if for no other reason, the listing of selected case law in the lede. That is something that belongs in the body of the article. Still, perhaps changes could be sandboxed and consensus on the lede achieved and implemented then?Wzrd1 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There should be a consensus for any substantive changes to the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Scalhotrod and they do good work. But I think that the two Scotus court cases (Heller/McDonald) which made huge rulings on the 2A belong in there. Miler being narrow and not on any of the main questions IMO shouldn't be in there but I think was put/left in there anyway as an olive branch to somebody. So I respectfully disagree with 2/3 of Scalhotrod's deletions. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lede should be to introduce the general subject, not immediately drill down into case law. Case law should be discussed in the various case law entries that are already listed, rather than duplicate them in the main article and clutter the lede with case law that could easily be considered POV. As an example, in the article on DNA, the lede does not mention alteration of DNA, sense and antisense or base pairing. Those have their own sections and are included in those sections. As there is already a section on case law, case law belongs there, lest we give undue weight to a sparse few cases individually and ignore the entire history, culture at the time and since, the fact of firearms ownership and private militias throughout colonial history and well into US history and more in favor of four items of case law. My own opinion on the rest of the article flow would be remove the case law from the lede, leave Heller for its case law section and impact toward the end of the article, as Heller did not influence the English Bill of Rights or English common law, the converse is true far, far, far later. The discussion that goes on in the Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 section errs in including a singular modern SCOTUS decision, as that discussion should be under the decision itself and its impact. In its place should be an abbreviated (and wikilinked as needed history of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, English common law of the time, English self-defense and communal defense practices of the time as well as abuses of the Crown that were considered by those who penned the second amendment. One cannot comprehend things of the past in a vacuum or in a vacuum filled with ancient and modern at the same time. I'd also suggest that the Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights should not use green as a highlight of two commas, but something more in common with the page theme, it's a bit jarring. Red may suffice, as that is used in dead links or some other form of annotation that isn't jarring and distracting. I'll not go into militia performance throughout colonial history and well into US history other than to remark that the National Guard was created for a reason, the incredibly high death count of federally called up militiamen throughout the existence of militias in the US. Even back during the French and Indian war the militia's quality and competency was lousy, with militias being rescued by English regulars being the norm. I learned of that in embarrassing detail when I was unit historian for a historic National Guard unit that traced its direct lineage to a militia unit founded by Benjamin Franklin. The fact is that the Dick Act split the militia into the organized militia, aka National Guard and the unorganized militia, aka the male populace between the age of 18-45 and prior active duty servicemen to age 61. Any arguments for against the majority or against how the second amendment is perceived should be left out of the article, as that is a POV. The history could provide mention of private ownership of firearms, as men did own firearms that they used for both hunting and defense against those who would cause them harm, be it a brigand or a hostile Native American. The trick is to avoid undue weight on either side of the argument, lest a reader be mislead by an editor's POV, rather than tradition, practice, legal standards that have been in place before we were even a nation and continues on today. We must also recognize that even if one disagrees with any SCOTUS decision, it is the law of the land, regardless of one's wishes and one must edit in that way.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually "the lede should be to introduce the general subject" is not correct. (although the first sentence typically does that)  The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * North, thank you for your kind and respectful words, and to Wzrd, thank you for appreciating my view of how WP policy applies. I agree with the points that both of you have made including the court cases. My edits to the lead were with the intention of making it summary and I never intended it to be a unilateral effort. I'd truly like the Lead to cover the 2nd's full history very briefly and tacitly touch on recent events.


 * Much like the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights is a living document and needs to ebb and flow with the times while maintaining its integrity. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see how the lead could use some clipping on the supreme court stuff. I think it just sorta grew out of compromises.  It should cover all aspects, including (non scotus) history of the 2nd amendment.  &there4;  Na apple    TALK  &#124;  CON   05:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the article not about the general subject in most cases, where more specialized areas of a subject tend to have their own articles? Hence, the lede describes the "mile away view" and specifics go in their own sections in, hopefully, a logical flow. I think we do have some degree of consensus on the SCOTUS cases not being in the lede, as they don't really add to the lede and they do have their own sections. Perhaps we can have editors sandbox suggested changes and a consensus arrived at out of those? Indeed, why not utilize our current DRN to spur an effort to reacquire the lost WP:GA that was lost a half decade ago? What we each must guard against is introducing our own POV into the article and stick with the history, traditions, common law and especially case law, whether we agree with the case law or not. If I were to be editing on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I'd do my best to avoid my personal POV, even to the point of discussing that POV on the talk page in asking for other editors to review suggested changes to avoid injecting my own POV into the article. I'd do that because I have especially strong feelings about a legal fiction that is necessary for a corporation to acquire property and negotiate contracts being extended to become a fundamental right that could then potentially be abused to the point of granting corporations the right to vote, even outvote their employees. The same is true here, so I'd ask input for significant changes beyond punctuation or changing words in a sentence for improved clarity and flow. That assists in avoiding introducing POV, improves the prose itself and collaboration tends to create a superior version than unilateral work, especially when done section by section.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that there has been only one specific dispute, which is GreekParadise wanting to put their creative spin characterization on (roughly) the second half of the 20th century,and to put that in the most prominent places.  Here (and at DRN) I'm seeing items which have not really been thoroughly discussed (much less really disputed) being proposed for  elaborate processes.  I am concerned about a huge process being created that would die under it's own weight. I think that for most items we should start by discussing specifics on  specific changes (not on giant bundles of changes) and see where the normal processes can take us.  North8000 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could support removing all court cases from the lead. State that the amendment protects both an individual and state right. A brief history – roots in English bill of rights – reasons for enactment -meanings – controversy – small number of challenges. Short paragraph on major restrictions – NFA - GCA68 - FOPA. I could also support leaving the lead as it is. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's my thoughts:
 * 1 choice (best)  Same as now except remove Miller
 * 2 As it is now
 * 3 Remove all cases from the lead. Not  a good idea, but I could live with it.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are mostly in agreement, we just have to work out the details. One of the sources I located recently (a research paper by a law professor and granted its a controversial one) stated in its introduction that the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd least contentious Amendment in terms of court cases challenging its authority or efficacy. This is true in light of the Heller case and the like. The impact of these cases is nonetheless critical and significant and thus they should be mentioned, and yes to some extent in the Lead.


 * That said, I think we just need to figure how to construct the Lead versus what should be in it. Like the Racism or Abortion articles, this article should be able to talk about and describe the topic without including or being mired in the debate by 'opposing sides'. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that we shouldn't be getting into "sides" arguments. the problem is that the second amendment protections as applied (as opposed to any particular side's interpretation) are somewhat ambiguous, and defined by moving boundaries of the court cases (As is true of many rights or protections - the extent of that right/protection is defined by whatever SCOTUS rules, unless explicit in legislation (and even then...) Therefore, to accurately state what it is the amendment does (or protects), one must talk about the cases that are mapping out its boundaries. To compound this issue, those case-defined boundaries themselves are often ambiguous (as our extensive debate regarding Miller shows).   It is my personal opinion, that Heller pretty much washed away the previous case law (IE, there is no remaining right or limitation of that right that is not covered/discussed by heller. )  Therefore, the "current state" of the law can be adequately described by heller (or better, reliable sources describing heller). The other case law is certainly very important both in supporting struts of heller, and in various historical moment in time interpretations.  However, If someone can show part of the right, or limitation on that right that is discussed exclusively somewhere else, then I am more than happy for it to also be included in the lede (assuming it is a sufficiently important right or limitation, and not some theoretical edge case). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All very well and true observations, but that shouldn't stop us from talking about the 2nd in its entirety and equally. WP:NEWSPAPER et. al. notwithstanding, the article has over 200 years of evolution and issues to cover. The "current state" should not be emphasized above and beyond any other stage of its existence. The "current status" could just as easily change with the next SCOTUS appointment and when that happens we'll update the article again, but in the meantime the facts are just the facts including what is or is not ambiguous if its appropriate to include. If not, then there's likely another (and more specific or directed) article that does. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One minor point, not intended to take away from the larger, more worthy issue of returning this article to Wikipedia:Good articles, is the issue of the 2nd and its application to a 'Living Constitution'. Loose Constructionism is one of several methods of judicial interpretation, likely represented in Justice Stephen Breyer's opinions -- while Scalia is a fairly obvious adherent to Textualism. Just a note to stay away from those sorts of debilitating side issues, in attempting to re-construct this page to Good status. 10stone5 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is usually a prudent move on this and similar articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
As already noted, the discussion above has been submitted to the Dispute Resolution process. Interested editors will want to see that, so here's a link: — Mudwater (Talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution


 * thanks for the link here. &there4;  Na apple    TALK  &#124;  CON   02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Notified other active editors who should have been included – hope I didn’t miss anyone. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I've placed my 2 cents there, with mention of archived comments that are quite lengthy.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

resolution
Per administrator TransporterMan: "Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for general discussion at this point in time, but I do want to ask everyone a question. When there is only one editor who wants to do something and many who do not, the first question we have to ask here at DRN is whether consensus has already been reached. If consensus has already been reached, then a listing here should be closed because there is nothing to talk about and engaging in dispute resolution would be inappropriate. It sometimes happens, however, that despite the disparity in position that the more-numerous side doesn't feel settled about the matter and is not yet willing to declare consensus without further discussion or, and this is slightly different, does feel that there is probably a consensus but wants an evaluation by a neutral party. Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)" I believe we have reached a de facto consensus and should close the dr. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a great start, why are we not using this?
User GreekParadise gets the credit for this...

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.

It's not perfect, but can't we start with this? I feel a bit like a dolt as this is exactly the kind of Lead I was attempting to assemble. My apologies to GP for not seeing this more promptly. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is extremely biased, and speculative, and also states a host of suppositions that are extremely contrary to documented historical facts. WP is not supposed to be a crystal ball and be speculating on what the "correct" interpretation would have been had the Supreme Court ruled on the 2A long prior to Heller.  The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Heller for the first time on the individual vs. collective rights meanings of the 2A.  We cannot hypothecate on what the Supreme Court might have ruled, had it ruled prior to when it did.  We can only report what actually happened, according to cited and verifiable sources.  I don't think we should start with an extremely biased and speculative opening to this article.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a workable starting point, but in particular I think that the phrase "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." contains WP:OR and misrepresentation of Miller. The ruling does not say "collective right" or "right to service in a militia" but in fact says "... 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" which is open to interpretation. - However I think a weaker version of that statement along the lines of "Lower interpreted Miller to protect a collective right" or some such is probably neutral and sourcable - but we should also bring to bear the many sources that describe miller as ambiguous. We should also mention that SCOTUS twice said (Printz, Heller) that Miller was not an examination of the right, or creation of a general rule etc (obviously top of my head wording here, and not something I think should actually be used) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that there are many many many problems in there. It would take an hour to detail and discuss all of them North8000 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I discussed above, strictly speaking a collective right is a right given to a group, in this case the individual states, but that has rarely been argued and was not used in the dissenting opinion in DC v Heller. The CRS article defines it as a right given to each state. Also I think the lead should be shorter, and just capture the key points. TFD (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any condensed Introduction should include SCOTUS decisions, because those decisions provide the official meaning of the amendment. Also, we need to avoid synthesis. For example, the Introduction should not include a claim that the U.S. Courts of Appeals were interpreting the Second Amendment in a certain way pre-Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I find many problems with the suggestion. Starting with the unexplained prefatory clause is confusing. I don’t think "more than two centuries disagreement" is correct. What is the point of "no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law"? All the cases were about restrictions - not rights. "Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded… limited to a collective right" – sounds speculative and a misrepresentation of Miller. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, so how about...

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.

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 esablished 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.

Two cases were instrumental in establishing this new 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 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. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * Hi Scalhotrod – please remember to sign your posts – I thought it was someone else. You seem to have adopted GreekParadise’s arguments which we spent a lot of time disputing most recently at. dr


 * Regarding your suggested lead changes
 * I don’t see the value of adding the prefatory clause.
 * I don’t understand why you want to remove the English history.
 * “no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law” is misleading. The reverse is more true - No law enforcement agency, law, or court ruling was able to keep a qualified individual from owning a qualified firearm. Qualified individuals make up 75% (95% if you remove the underage) of the population. Qualified firearms make up over95% of guns in the country.


 * “Federal Courts had established that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia” also not true and misleading – a synthesis of Miller. None of the cases dealt with Individual or collective rights – they were all about restrictions on rights. For example:
 * KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) – plaintiff refused to answer questions about Communist affiliations
 * Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), civil rights case involving refusal to admit Blacks
 * Adams v. Williams (1972) - limited protective search for concealed weapons
 * Lewis v. United States (1980) – wrongful conviction does not remove someone from GCA68 list
 * Printz v. United States (1997) - congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal law - Act’s interim provisions to be unconstitutional
 * In summery I think we need a better starting point. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

another try
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 It reads (text of 2A) 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.

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single any gun control laws 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 During most of the Twentieth Century, the lower Federal Courts had established ruled using the interpretation that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia. In Miller, SCOTUS 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.

Two cases were instrumental in establishing this new 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 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. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One particular issue I still have with this version is the "From 1791 to 2007" portion. We know that until McDonald the 2A was not incorporated against states. When was the first Federal gun law passed? Was there any before 1934? It seems deceptive to say that between 1791 and 2007 no laws were struck down if no laws even existed to attempt to be struck down until 1934 (or whenever a law was first passed)


 * There was the mail order thing in 1927, Miller Act, and another prior to that, but I can't find the reference at the moment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what GP's stance is, I'm just trying to figure out a neutral lead that summarizes the article. Soooo...

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 adding the preface that “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. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone (commonly referred to simply as "Blackstone") as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.


 * This is about as basic as it gets and is similar to the other Amendment articles. Is the English reference OK or "enough"?

"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 established that the Second Amendment was limited 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]"


 * It might be awkwardly worded, but its factually true according to the cited source. Stating the reverse is fine with me, but we need a source for that too.

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.

Two cases were instrumental in establishing this new 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 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. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * These are seemingly OK?

My apologies for not signing previously... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I still have issues. Rational for adding the prefatory clause? We agreed earlier not use the text of 2A. in the lead. The Miller Act obviously didn’t hold as Oswald mail ordered his gun. The 1791-2007 dates must be synthesize from “for the first time” written in 2007, Liptak forgot Emerson – better to say from Miller to the rest of the twentieth century. More correct to say “gun control law restrictions to individual right of 2A”. “Amendment was limited to service in a "well regulated militia" is a synthesis of Miller. I have more but will be away for a few days. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of adding to the lead “no gun control law was ever overturned” in the lead? It seems POV to me. You have claimed the lead should be a synopsis of the article. I don’t see this information in the article. It might be true but it is so complex to explain it should be in the body: not the lead. “I'm not sure what GP's stance is” your comments here and on his talk page seem to contradict that. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Scalhotrod, why are you mentioning "collective rights". TFD (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Combined draft
New version that incorporates comments here (to the extent that the citation will allow) and in keeping with the style/format of the other Amendment article Leads. Please forgive my formatting, the inline citations still need cleanup and proper WP coding...

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. [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

"The Second Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights.[1, 1a] While in recent years it has been the source of controversy and renewed Supreme court interest, only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention.[2] Prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only three opinions dealing directly with the Second Amendment,[4] the last in 1939 (with the Miller case),[5] and no federal statute or administrative regulation had been invalidated on Second Amendment grounds."

"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 via the 1875 Cruikshank case. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had established construed that the Second Amendment was limited to 'militia' service and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case. [citation Miller and CRS]"

In the Twenty-First Century, a lower Federal Court determined 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 via the Heller case. In McDonald v. Chicago 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. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * Need to be converted to inline cites
 * 1. Commencement Address at Yale University, Pub. Papers 470, 471 (June 11, 1962).
 * 1a. [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]
 * 2. See Douglas O. Linder, Trends in Constitution-Based Litigation in the Federal Courts, 63 U. MO. AT KAN. CITY L. REV. 41, 69 (1994) (stating that third amendment cases were least litigated). Compare U.S. CONST. amend. II with U.S. CONST. amend. III.
 * 3. Compare U.S. CONST. amend. I with U.S. CONST. amend. II (totaling pages in bound volumes and 1996 Supplementary Pamphlets).
 * 4. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1976); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Gun control supporters like to call attention to Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (noting that Second Amendment does not guarantee right to either keep or bear firearms if there is no relationship to militia), while gun control opponents often cite United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (suggesting that term "the people" as used in First, Second, and Fourth Amendments may all refer to "persons who are part of a national community"). However, neither of these cases presented a Second Amendment issue, and the court's brief and passing comments about the Second Amendment in both of these cases are clearly dicta.
 * 5. See Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not know if the right to bear arms existed under common law, Blackstone was referring to the right that the 2A protects or if the 1689 act influenced the 2A. I also think that we should use secondary sources explaining what the amendment means, rather than relying on SCOTUS rulings.  TFD (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what wording do you suggest, the rest of the WP Amendment articles cite sources and influences for their creation? I was following suit. And I'm always fine with additional sources. We likely have ample to select from already... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have issue with the "federal courts established" part. Heller (and printz) were very clear and explicit that Heller was not overturning prior precedent. Therefore, Miller certainly did not establish anything. To what degree do lower courts have the ability to establish anything? (Particularly when there were 2 circuits that disagreed). Did (most) lower courts rule under that interpretation? Yes. Did they establish anything? No. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I "hemmed and hawed" over using the word 'established' as well. I'm open to suggestions as well as specificity. As far as that paragraph is concerned, I have some idea of what GP was going for but I think additional detail and references would be helpful. It was the standard back then that if a gun was more "military-like" (versus intentionally concealable), then it was allowed, hence the laundry list of firearms (i.e. gangster weapons) that the 1934 NFA made illegal. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good. Good enough. It should be chucked in the lede. There's nothing there that isn't unworkable at this point, and it's way better than the current one. We can continue editing/tweaking from the article now. &there4;  Na apple   TALK  &#124;  CON   23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Naapple, but lets try to get it as polished as we can before going live. Tweaking and perpetual edits are part of what set off this drawn out mess. At the very least I want to post a version here that's coded and cited properly. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I think we have a good starting point. In light of past disputes over lede changes, I agree we need more tweaks to reach a consensus before releasing. Nice work Scalhotrod. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Graham, I hope that we can get a few more of the more active editors to comment, but I too am happy with the direction we have taken. Time permitting, I will work on the citation cleanup and the coding. After we load the new Lead, I would very much like to see about returning this article to its previous "Good" status. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several issues with the proposed text. Here is my attempt to address these issues:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the second part of the United States Bill of Rights and protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

"The Second Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights for historically having elicited very little judicial attention.[1, 1a] In recent years, though, it has been the source of controversy and renewed Supreme court interest; only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention.[2] Prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only three opinions dealing directly with the Second Amendment,[4] the last in 1939 (with the Miller case).[5]"

"In the Nineteenth Century, prior to the incorporation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone."

In the Twenty-First Century, a lower Federal Court determined 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 verified this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms via the Heller case. In McDonald v. Chicago the Court overruled its earlier decisions issued prior to the incorporation of the Second Amendment, formerly limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government alone and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * With the edits made above, the speculation that was present in the original proposed text has been removed, leaving only the verified and unspeculative text. Comments?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you meant a word other than "verified" above, and it was more than "a" lower federal court, it was 10/12 circuits, but I am not sure how best to describe that accurately (Perhaps just saying 10 circuits ruled that way). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In the 3rd paragraph about the 19th century, when (what year?) was the incorporation you are referring to? And why did you remove the other sentences, what was stated was noted only cited, but was the actual court standard for the era. Court cases substantiate this. Its not speculation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorporation of the Bill of Rights -- I'm assuming this. 10stone5 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is quite good so far, however we must include: I'm glad such progress has been made lets remember to be in the lede all (or most) sources should agree. J8079s (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) some mention of the academic research in the late 20th century.
 * 2) Of interest in the 19th century: State supreme court decisions, commentary, the debates over adoption of the 14th amendment, and two SCOTUS decisions
 * 3) That "Heller" is the first in depth look at the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS


 * I'd suggest well established limitations on what classes of firearm one may possess, in short, a brief blurb and wikilink to the National Firearms Act of 1934. This is to correct any misapprehension that firearms covered under the NFA are unlawful, but that restrictions are in place to insure that the most potentially dangerous of our firearms are possessed by those of known mental, moral and community good status. It should be not too difficult to make such an addition in two sentences or so, with wikilinks to send those interested to the detailed article.
 * That said, the rest of the proposed prose is good. It gives the general outline and lets references and wikilinks "do the heavy lifting" for those who desire further detail. I'll help if I can, but time is precious of late since my father became ill again.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a few vague comments. The first draft had some severe problems which the second draft fixed. Wzrd1's comments are good, but mostly look like stuff for the article rather than the lead. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

2nd draft with proper coding
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

The Second Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights. While in recent years it has been the source of controversy and renewed judicial interest, only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention. Prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only three opinions dealing directly with the Amendment, the last in 1939 (with the Miller case), and no federal statute or administrative regulation had been invalidated on Second Amendment grounds.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century, ten of the twelve Federal circuit court judges ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual the right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008 the Supreme court officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms, via the Heller case. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that the Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

Whacha think? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I generally like this version except I think 2P needs an explanation of why it is unique rather than footnotes. If you mean it is unique because it has received little judicial attention then I suggest combining the first two sentences. If it is unique because it is the only amendment to state a purpose we should say so. I’m not clear on the point you’re making. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the paragraph does not make any reference to the 2A wording, I'm not sure where you get that impression, but I still see your point, it could be worded better. Lemme see what I can do... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

While in recent years it has been the source of renewed judicial interest and controversy, the Second Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights; only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention. Prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only three opinions dealing directly with the Amendment, the last in 1939 (with the Miller case), and no federal statute or administrative regulation had been invalidated on Second Amendment grounds.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century, ten of the twelve Federal circuit court judges ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual the right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008 the Supreme court officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms, via the Heller case. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that the Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

Better? And yes, thats the proper use of a semicolon. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The most glaring omission is the lack of any mention of the "standard view" which is reported by all sources wether its called "Liberal Case" "academic inquiry" it's mentioned in all sources. J8079s (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What wording are you suggesting? There has been a fundamental change in the application of this Amendment, the article itself goes into great detail, but why should it be in the Lead?
 * Better yet, just give me a source that refers to the "collective right" era or cases and I'll figure out how to add a phrase in the third paragraph. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest replacing this sentence  While in recent years it has been the source of controversy and renewed judicial interest,with While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest more to follow but one thing at a time J8079s (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Elegant, I like it! As I did that last edit, I started to dislike using the word "controversy". Great suggestion, thank you.

Refs 34 & 35 in reading seem to be trying to source "unique" but I think they are actually sourcing the "recent interest" bit. I suggest moving them forward to be clear. Not sure that "unique" is important. No matter what the situation is, one of the amendments by definition would have received the least scrutiny. Certainly the fact that it has recieved not much scrutiny is notable/important, but I don't think we need to say it is unique. The 10/12 circuit statement seems to be exactly backwards? Most circuits ruled against the individual view prior to emerson/parker (am I missing something in the source?) Although I have a personal fetich for the word notwithstanding, and you used it correctly, it is often confusing so I suggest replacing with "in spite of" or something more clear. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, while I strive for an "encyclopedic style", I do feel that good writing includes an unrestricted vocabulary. "Spite" is vaguely inflammatory (in this context) to me, let me crack open the Thesaurus. "Unique" is not my wording, its a direct quote from the UC Davis Prof Bogus (actual name) research paper. I'm not opposed to changing it for paraphrase sake, but I think his point was that there are two Amendments that has received relatively little attention over their lifespan and then over a very short period of time, one is immensely 'popular' with the public, Academia, and the Judiciary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the "10 of 12" phrase, I thought I was incorporating your clarification (specificity, as I refer to it) from the previous section, no? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is the United States courts of appeals that split 3 of 12 endorsing "standard model" (Hutzell 8th, Emerson 5th, and Parker D.C..) one (9th in Silveira) repudiating the standard model calling it the "Traditional view" given the dissent in each it would be enough to say: In the Twenty-First Century the United States courts of appeals split on the question does Second Amendment confer an individual the right to keep and bear arms? J8079s (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so what's the final score? 9 of 12 were for or against "what"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9 of 12 ruled consistently with the collective rights view. 3 ruled towards the individual rights view, which was ultimately endorsed by the supreme court. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. I woud much rather drop the counting than find the sources needed to determine the "score" (a detailed break down has a place at Firearms case law}. only "Parker" had any impact on SCOTUS. I cut and pasted my self into conner I would like to leave it at "split" by recasting the sentence. J8079s (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote from Blackstone about "natural rights" gives the impression that DC vs. Heller was based on a natural rights interpretation. In fact Scalia, who wrote the majority decision, rejects natural rights theory.  TFD (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Heller specifically says "codified a pre-existing right" and quotes Cruikshank as well "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and specifically quotes Blackstone "His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,”" as well as 5 other citations and arguments discussing natural rights. Its conclusion is "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right" On what are you basing your statement that he rejected the natural rights argument? Perhaps you are confusing Steven's/Bryer dissent which did attempt to reject that argument? Beyond that, even if Heller is not based on natural rights, Blackstone's commentary could still be relevant to the lede as a (the most?) notable historical commentary. Alito also brought up the Natural rights argument in his opinion in McDonald. Beyond that, we are quoting Blackwell as saying it is an auxiliary right, and the natural right is "self defense".  Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My analysis is born out by several RS as well,

 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Scalia wrote, "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”" While he quotes Blackstone and others who said that the right to keep and bear arms was based on the "natural right" of self-defense, he does not himself say that natural rights exist.  In Scalia and the Lure of the Natural Law, Hadley Arkes, similar to article you provided by Lund, says that Scalia strayed from the positive law view of originalists to a natural rights view.  (The article explains itself better than I could and since it is brief I would appreciate you read it before replying.)  But I think it would be wrong to categorically state that Scalia had made such a radical change in his thinking.  Also, if we quote Blackstone's natural rights view, which is generally favored by liberals, then we need to balance it with the positive law view that is generally supported by conservatives and libertarians. McDonald only uses the term "natural right" once, and it is in quoting an earlier case.  While it mentions the "right of self-defense", it does not say whether it is a positive law or natural right.  TFD (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Yosemite Sam is famous for saying, Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute... I am all for writing with clarity of purpose and meaning, but if we going to start speculating as to how any reader might infer or interpolate how we are wording or structuring the article, then this will devolve back into the mess we've been dealing with ad nauseam.
 * We will state the facts as clearly and as plainly as we can given our available references that still adhere to the WP:MOS. Everyone OK with this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * TFDSo your article is in fact another source saying that he used a natural rights argument? I fail to see how that is evidence that "he rejected it" (His historical stance on natural rights notwithstanding). The vast majority of the opinion is dedicated to natural rights quotes/arguments, he does specifically say "inherent right". In any case, in the face of multiple WP:RS, your assertion of rejection is WP:OR. Cruickshank and Heller both say "codifies pre-existing" directly, and the many RS we have (your newest included) discussing the natural right viewpoint.  so the positive law viewpoint (on this issue) is weak-sauce and would need very strong sourcing to be WP:DUE. Blackstone is directly quoted by heller, and even if it was not, it could stand as a placeholder for the historical perspective. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the decision was based on the evidence that it was a "pre-existing right", not that it was a natural right. TFD (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The natural or inherent right (both according to Blackstone, and Scalaia) is Self Defense, which is what we state in the proposed text. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

my take so far
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest, only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention. Prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only a few opinions dealing directly with the Amendment, the last in 1939 (with the Miller case),

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century the United States courts of appeals split on the question: does Second Amendment recognize an individual the right to keep and bear arms absent militia service? with both sides citing Miller. Hutzell 8th, Emerson 5th, and Parker D.C. and the dissent in Silveira endorsing the standard model. In 2008 the Supreme court officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms, via the Heller case. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that the Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government. These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

Still needs work. are we getting anywhere? J8079s (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think its a good step forward. I like this version of the 2nd paragraph much more. If we are going to name the "standard model" circuits, we should name or at least count the  other circuits, and if we are going to use the phrase "standard model" i think it should be quoted and defined as a term of art, as most readers will not know it.  'endorsing the "standard model" or individual rights view' or something like that. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, many readers would not know what the "standard model" is, especially as there is no article on the legal sense of the term. I'd also suggest that when one cites the Bill of Rights, one use a wikilink to it as well. There has been more than one bill of rights penned in the world and far too US citizens are both not aware of that fact or that our Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the turn of recent events (i.e. Heller) using the term "standard" in this context has now become POV. We just can't use it in the Lead. "Collective right" or some other descriptive, yet neutral term or phrase is only acceptable solution for Wikipedia or any encyclopedic article. I agree on the Bill of Rights link, good catch. Can we go back to "only three" instead of "only a few" in P2? We've established a specific detail and have a source for it, I'd hate to have even a single phrase be vague in any way. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not stuck on the name, especially not in the sentence its in. However I find it is a common name even in rebuttal. We must  use the term somewhere J8079s (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the "only the 3rd" statement factually true anymore after heller and mcdonald? Are we sourcing that to Miller era sources? I think we should avoid "standard model" all together, it was a POV term from gun-rights (first used by noted conservative Glenn Reynolds in 1995 ), and we would have to define it anyway. Just use straightforward individual right or some such. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With the preface "prior to Heller", yes, the citation is from 1998. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * sources vary on this point some include Houston v.Moore 1821, Scott v. Sandford 1857, United States v. Cruikshank 1876, Presser v. Illinois 1886, Logan v. United States 1892, Miller v. Texas 1894, Brown v. Walker 1896, Robertson v. Baldwin 1897 others include more we will need to leave at "few". J8079s (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As written, the"prior to heller" text modifies the "only a few" statement, but does not qualify the "only the 3rd has less" statement. With Heller and Mcdonald, if the 2nd has now overtaken whoever #3 previously was, our statement is wrong. I feel like stating "only the 3rd" is WP:OR particularly as our "judicial attention" statement is not limited to SCOTUS, but includes lower court rulings, and I don't see any WP:RS that has been doing counts there. I suggest gutting the comparison phrase "While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest, only the Third Amendment (which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes without the owner's consent) has received less judicial attention. P ,prior to the landmark 2008 Heller case, the United States Supreme Court handed down only a few opinions dealing directly with the Amendment,[2] the last in 1939 (with the Miller case),[3]"
 * Beyond that, the "prior to heller" modifier is confusing, and makes it read like after heller there may have been MANY rulings, when in fact there are only 2. The "only a few" line seems mostly accurate (although certainly we could find something even better) even if applied to all time ever. Perhaps something like "While in recent years it has been the subject of Academic inquiry and judicial interest, SCOTUS has only directly ruled on the 2A X times, with a YY year gap between Miller and Heller" or something to that effect.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the original text from 1998 I was paraphrasing...

"The Second Amendment is unique. No other constitutional provision has lived so small a life in the law while looming so large in the realms of policy, politics, and popular culture. Among the Bill of Rights, only the Third Amendment, which prohibits the quartering of troops in homes, has received less judicial attention.[2] Annotations of all the cases that have dealt with the Second Amendment take up a mere ten pages in the United States Code Annotated, compared, for example, to 1452 pages for First Amendment cases.[3] In the history of the republic, the United States Supreme Court has handed down only three opinions dealing directly with the Second Amendment,[4] the last in 1939,[5] and no federal statute or administrative regulation has ever been invalidated on Second Amendment grounds."
 * Its from a cited and researched paper by a UC Davis law professor. I don't care what's written as long as its neutral and factually accurate, but its needs to be done with decent grammar usage and accurate sentence structure. Regardless of everyone's personal opinions, an article regarding any Constitutional Amendment deserves no less. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely on your goal. I am just concerned that commentary done 15 years ago is mainly relevant to the state of things 15 years ago. Lots of court cases have come and gone since then, and many of them dealt with the second amendment. Beyond that, is counting pages in a book a reliable technique to make this analysis? If one hypothetical judge decides to write a 40 page ruling, is that equal to 40 1 page rulings? He also doesn't mention the page counts for other amendments which we could use as a guideline for "how far behind" the 2nd was. I am more than happy to say that the second amendment was not heavily investigated judicially (especially at the SCOTUS level, where we can give a solid count) - but I think we should be doing so in a way that is we can be sure is still accurate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

back to perspective
Folks, in practice the Lead is (no more than) a four paragraph summary of the article that informs, but does not 'tease' a reader. Again, we're not here to debate the subject and there is absolutely no way that we can expect to fit every single subtle nuance to last decades worth of debate let alone just the SCOTUS attention. Its completely unreasonable to expect this article's Lead to convey any of the "political angst" or "judicial complexity" that is associated with 2A, nor should it. "Understatement" is not a bad thing.

Lets also take into consideration the immense Table of Contents that will follow this lead. Regardless of what we include (or not) in the Lead, its fairly obvious that this article is lengthy and involved to say the least.

If we talk about "courts", how about limiting it just to SCOTUS. Not that lower courts aren't important, but in the Lead they are the most important aspect of the article. I think we have a good chronological historical summary of the 19th and 20th Centuries, obviously the 21st is the tricky one.

As for the Amendment itself, for the Lead, lets just leave out any qualitative statements about it being "unique", "special", "different, or what-have-you. Plus its probably better form to leave the mention of 3A out altogether. Gaijin has a good point.

So I think that leaves us with...

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case. This is referred to by constitutional scholars and researchers as the "collective rights" era.{needs citation}

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case whereby a new direct interpretation of the Amendment was adopted. This view held expressly that the Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

I wish there was a Category of "firearm related political groups", a catchall that includes the NRA and the Brady Center. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good progress. I agree with your general principles and limiting the lede. Two quibbles. I actually find 0 hits in g, gbooks, and gscholar for "collective rights era" referring to gun laws - I think here we should just say the lower courts were split on collective vs individual rights interpretations, with 9/12 taking the collective view.  (A circuit split being  a main reason why SCOTUS ultimately takes cases).  Im also not in love with "new direct interpretation" as the interpretation is not really new. Just say they adopted the individual rights view and not put a spin on it.  A bit of the problem is that the paragraphs are divided by century, which makes things complicated, when really the major timeline splits are miller vs heller (and to be more accurate on the circuit splits thing, pre parker/emerson, since there technically wasn't a circuit split prior to those cases). Regarding the categories, I think it would be non-controversial to create a parent category for gun rights advocates and gun control advocates and put them together (although finding a good name might be tough) (As a nice collary, the Abortion issue has the pro-choice movement, and pro-life movement both under "Abortion Debate")  Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestions and commentary! Yeah, I figured I was pushing it a bit with the "new direct" wording, but its what came to mind first. As for division, chronological just seems to make the most sense given the long history, you can only fit "so much" in four paragraphs. Granted Heller is the pivotal judicial moment in recent history, but its just one of many stops on 2A's journey through time. Who knows what will happen in the future; so to some extent this is why P3 is effectively about Heller and its followup. Bummer on the "collective rights" search. Speaking of the abortion issue, I'm sure the folks that the "Rowe v. Wade" article is near and dear to go through the same thing on how to update it and keep it relevant. And you're right about the Category name, that's exactly what stopped me from creating it once I thought it could come in handy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah hah! I just had an epiphany!!
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case whereby a non-"collective rights" interpretation of the Amendment was adopted. This view held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should add "codified a pre-existing right" into the cruikshank line, as that is the first place ruling that, and it also provides a nice segue from the Blackstone quote. So we have put a lot of work into the lede here, but it seems like we are almost right back where we started (See the current lede). We have like 2 extra sentences, but the only substantive change is to rearrange things by century, instead of just listing the cases. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The additional phrase works for me, how would you work it in? As for a comparison of the current to what we have created, I think its substantially different. The listing of the cases is obviously chronological, but we have put significant thought into this synopsis so that's its clearly worded, neutral, and to the best of our ability representative of the history of the article subject. We have to acknowledge that there's no way to fully address every aspect of the overall article to the extent that many editors may want or prefer, but the WP:MOS is what it is and for a reason. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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", but limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked your first version better...

Recapping...

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the amendment "codified a pre-existing right" which "is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", but limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case whereby a non-"collective rights" interpretation of the Amendment was adopted. This view held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "codified a pre-existing right" text is actually from heller, so if we use that during the 19th century we have to do it in wiki's voice, not as a quote. Thats why I made my change. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break for ease of editing
OK, so this...?

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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" and limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case whereby a non-"collective rights" interpretation of the Amendment was adopted. This view held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

By the way, this version leaves room for expansion for the "next decision" or significant court case. I've been trying very hard to stick to the 4 paragraph guideline from the WP:MOS. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you using the phrase non-collective? It seems cumbersome? Is it just so you can wikilink collective? Individual right seems much clearer in this context. Perhaps add a sentence after Miller saying similar to what is in the current lede, saying this ruling is considered ambiguous and resulted in a debate between collective (wikilink) and individual rights interpretations etc. Then we can be very straightforward in describing Heller. In the cruikshank, a "but" seems better than "and" to me, since one phrase supports more gun rights protection, but the other weakens that protection, but that could be my own personal reading of the case intruding. What is the "also" in the Heller case? Other than the individual right, what other right is protected?  Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "non-collective" is my attempt at a smoother transition of pre- to post- Heller eras. OK, not as elegant as the rest, but yes it does allow for linking and further explanation for the reader.
 * I agree with individual right, hence the next sentence.
 * The extra sentence makes sense to me. What do you suggest for describing Heller?
 * Cruikshank, they made a declaration and took an action, hence the "and".
 * The also is critical. From the reading I've been doing, both the collective right and the individual right stances are supported. Heller did not invalidate the collective stance it just broadened 2A's interpretation to include the individual right as well.

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * non-collective seems to take a pov that it WAS collective before though. What source(s) are you relying on for the "also"? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what do we call the pre-Heller era if not "collective"? I'm not 'for' or 'against' any particular term, I'm just trying to be descriptive. I found 2 for the "also", but I have to dig them up again. One is that huge compendium, "Guns in American Society", but I'll have to located the page.
 * I don't think we should describe the time period in any way, because there is no single agreed widespread description of that period used (something that would comply with WP:RS/AC for example.) Just give facts of what happened in that period. "Miller ignited a debate between the collective and individual rights interpretations of the Second Amendment. The 12 Lower district courts split in their rulings with 9 taking the collective viewpoint, and 3 using the individual rights model. (next paragraph, Heller)" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gaijin42. Just give the facts. Describing the era between Miller and Heller as favoring the collective right viewpoint would run into the ban on synthesis. It's better to simply refer to the disagreement in the legal, academic, and political communities during that period.
 * Also, McDonald did not overrule any Supreme Court decisions. Only Justice Thomas would have done so. The plurality opinion distinguished those earlier decisions (e.g., Cruikshank) on the ground that those decisions ruled that the Second Amendment was not incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but did not discuss the Due Process Clause. The plurality ruled that those decisions were not precedent for whether the Second Amendment could be incorporated via the Due Process Clause. The plurality opinion is the de facto Opinion of the Court, because it is the opinion that supports the holding and is based on the narrowest grounds (see Marks v. United States). SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Macdonald wording isn't mine, not sure who edited that, does "clarify" work in this context? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicely worded, so....

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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" and limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case. The Miller ruling started a debate between the collective and individual rights interpretations of the Second Amendment.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case that held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.

I didn't include the appellate court ruling split because its a 21stC thing. It would go in P3 if we mention it. I think the Supreme adopting it is probably credible enough with Heller. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am good with this version. the interesting thing about the split is that the 9/12 are all 20th century (I think), but the 3/12 are all 21st. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Subject to MOS-based corrections, I'm satisfied with the latest proposed wording. SMP0328. (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoo Hoo!!! I have to admit that I'm a little "proximity blind" at this point. Any suggestions for polish or smoothing or should we just push it live and see how the masses take to it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential new version
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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" and limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case. The Miller ruling started a debate between the collective and individual rights interpretations of the Second Amendment.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case that held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * Somehow I missed the differences between the last two versions. I think you should make this the new lede – any tweaks, if needed, can then be done in the article and discussed in a separate section on Talk. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing substantive since the immediately previous version. I tweaked the coding a bit, I was just posting a clean version for review. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It misrepresents Miller by taking an old quote out of context and placing it into the framework of later questions that weren't asked or addressed during Miller. Miller was addressing the limits of the "militia" route, not whether or not an individual right was granted. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The quote specifically is put in the context of militia weapons. The later debate is well documented. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this something that can be fixed with a reference? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No one claims that the bill of rights created rights. You need to explain too whether it was a natural or a pre-existing right.  TFD (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the same first paragraph that I did. What distinction are you making that isn't present in the wording? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am posting this source to help gain consensus, so far all we have agreement on is that "Heller" and its extensions has the most weight. If we could all take a look at then re-read what we have as if you did know anything about the 2nd amendment I think what we need to do will be easier. J8079s (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, the best solution would be to leave Miller out of the lead. It was basically on whether or not the "militia route" established/protected a right to own exotic firearms. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@TFD although the nature of the right, is a very interesting and pertinent question, I do not believe there is WP:RS/AC that we could use to firmly answer the question. Blackstone said it was an auxiliary right. Heller made natural rights arguments extensively. Certainly there are sources to the contrary as well. However, while heller made certain arguments, they did not rule on the nature of the right (and why would they?) so I don't think we are going to be able to give a firm answer - certainly not one that we could do correctly in the lede. Beyond that, I am not sure what you mean as to "natural or pre-existing". Are you attempting to argue natural vs common law? @North8000 Miller is a major case, and even though it didn't directly (or unambiguously) decide much, its influence on the next 60+ years was massive (and may continue to have an effect really).Gaijin42 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In Heller the Court decided that the right to bear arms already existed in law when the Bill of Rights was written. The way to understand it was to consider what the law allowed people before 1789.  If it were a natural right then it would be irrelevant what the federal, state and municipal laws had been.  For example, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy was a natural right that protected the right to abortion, even though the laws did not recognize such a right in 1789.  Although Blackstone was used as a source that the law recognized a right to bear arms, Scalia does not himself say self-defense was a natural right.  The judgment merely says, "The Second Amendent protects an individual right to possess a firearm...and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  How and why that right arose is beyond what the Court decided.  TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we don't say that it was a natural right. So I am unsure what your objection is. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42. If we have Miller in the lead, I think that the best thing to put in would be a summary of the Congressional Research Service summary rather than a quote which is completely misleading when removed from context and placed in a different context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on how it is misleading? WP:RS/AC is wide that Miller allows limiting of weapons not related to militia service. What text do you suggest using CRS as a cite? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would take some time to create a good "summary of the summary".  So I thought I'd start with floating it as a general idea.  North8000 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Conceptually, I am not opposed, but obviously we would need to have at least an inlking of the text to come to a decision. Can you give the $0.50 version? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Going this fast I'm just going from memory and am afraid I'm screwing it up. But briefly I think that they said that the court's ruling only addressed whether the "militia route" right is unlimited with respect to firearm type.  And they said "no".    And that the ruling did not address whether or not an individual right (un-connceted to any military service) exists / is protected.   And so it was and is considered (by all) to be confusing/ giving no guidance on  the latter question.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

right. So how does that disagree with what we put in? They can limit weapons unrelated to service in a militia. The ruling is set off a debate about collective vs individual rights. That seems perfectly consistent with what you just said. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous consensus was to call miller ambiguous,     . I left a note at Talk:United_States_v._Miller. If any one needs to say more about Miller" that would be the place. While Miller is debated it did not ignite'' any thing. J8079s (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignite certainly is poetic language, but you agree that there was a long standing debate between collective and individual interpretations, with miller's ambiguity at the fulcrum of that debate? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced "ignite" in the most recent version I posted. It seemed better to remove any hyperbole. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No Debate is not really historical. Best summary from "Vile" above popular understandings and scholarly commentary have tended to diverge (until the standard model) Any debate is between the "gun grabers" and the "bunker guys"I agree with North8000 about Miller. J8079s (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Being bold
OK, I'm pushing this live...

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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" and limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal government alone via the 1875 Cruikshank case. By the Twentieth Century, the Federal courts had construed that the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” via the 1939 Miller case.

In the Twenty-First Century the Amendment has been the subject of renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In 2008 the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision with the Heller case that held expressly that the Amendment also protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

These decisions notwithstanding, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.


 * I was on the fence. Did a minor tweak and did not revert. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I was not entirely happy with the wording, but only did a minor tweak, fixing grammar, punctuation, and removing the "scare" quote POV push. I don't entirely like the present wording, but I can live with it. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I to think it "sucks" but its better than it was. J8079s (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm.... thanks, I think... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the minor edits I made to Scalhotrod revision to the Introduction. He had reverted my edit on the ground that I had not sufficiently contributed to the discussion over the revision. I had earlier said that I reserved the right to make minor changes to his wording. Regardless, I have as much right to make minor edits to this article as does any other registered editor. Scalhotrod also claimed that my minor edits would lead to conflict. I don't understand that would be the case, as my edits are all nonsubstantive. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to be "Hemmingway", but your sentence structure, grammar usage, and overall writing style is lacking in my opinion. Your edits make no sense nor seem to have any particular purpose other than to force your style on the lead. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not forcing anything on anybody. Are you claiming that your revisions to the Introduction can not be improved upon? Your reverting of my changes appear, IMO, that you feel the need to protect the changes you have made. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it can be worsened considerably. I had the patience to discuss the use of individual words when constructing the new lead. Now you're starting the hacking process all over again, the same kinds of seemingly "constructive edits" that got the article delisted from Good status. Where were your edits and suggestions over the month that we were editing? I could just as easily claim that your edits are disruptive at this point given the time and energy that been contributed by a variety of editors. If you want to start this process all over again and come up with something else, please do. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the capitalization fixes I made earlier. I believe these fixes are required by the MOS. As for the wording tweaks I earlier made, and that were reverted by Scalhotrod, I'll trust the judgment of my fellow editors. I believe my desired changes would not cause any dispute or undermine the article. I await the opinions of my fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not analyzed everything but wanted to mention that SMP0328 has been a long time editor here and I've always seen them to do excellent, careful and expert work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I supported Scalhotrod’s bold edits as a good step forward. I also support SMP0328‘s additions, as they seem to streamline the prose. I saw no style changes that were detrimental. We must be careful not to claim a personal ownership of our edits. Kudos to both of you! Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grahamboat; your bold change is an improvement and SMPs change is a minor improvement on that. In particular, eliminating the need for the phrase "... [to the federal government] alone via the 1875 Cruishank case" improves the flow. Also, the paragraph HTML tags were not paired correctly and removing them improves the HTML. Celestra (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * After reviewing and analyzing SMP’s edits, and taking into consideration Scalhotrod’s objections, I find the former improves the article and therefore I reinserted SMP’s edits. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your assistance. I'm glad this issue has been resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we finally have consensus on something... :) If the majority of the key players are happy, so am I. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article style
In my opinion, this article has become an in-depth discussion of the second ammendment, but it has lost is purpose as an encyclopedia article. I am not a lawyer. Instead, I am an economist grad student doing research on arms trafficking between the U.S. and Mexico, and I came to the article in order to look for context in my research. I was looking for an article that summarized what the second ammendment says, and its practical consequences in the present, but instead I found a historical account of its interpretations. In short, I was not able to find the information I was looking for. I do not pretend to say that the information in this article has no place in wikipedia, but it should be in a more detailed article, or at least after some basic sections that summarize basic information on the second ammendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.171.227 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that the information was not more useful to you. The difficulty is that the power of the second amendment is defined by the history. There is no definitive source of what it means, except for the various rulings that courts have made over the centuries. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello 209.120.171.227. I’m not sure why you came to this page for your research. Many editors, myself included, believe this article is too detailed as it is.


 * I suggest looking at Arms trafficking, ATF gunwalking scandal and Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been told by one book writer and another person who works in academia that they have used Wikipedia articles solely for their reference and further reading lists. Apparently, if nothing else, we as WP editors excel at ferreting out sources for information.
 * @209.120.171.227, as for what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. The court judgements notwithstanding, its all a matter of interpretation depending on an individual's perspective, so its a continuum. To understand what you are seeking, try to come up with a model that states the continuum in its most basic way. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not exist, but it should exist, and it should be the beginning of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not meant for detailed discussion of topics, it simply evolved to include that since the internet provides no limit on the amount of information it includes, but the basic discussion should never be missing. Try to think about what an article on the second ammendment in the Encyclopaedia Britannica included. They somehow managed to discuss any topic briefly so that somebody wanting some basic knowledge could find it quickly. Although Wikipedia should not be limited to this kind of reader, it should start any article with simple descriptions of the subject, and this article fails to do so. Try thinking as well of a highschool student reading this article, and you get the idea that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide knowledge to everybody, is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.171.227 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As a guide to editors, the main question I was trying to answer was to what extent states are bound in the present by the second amendment. What if citizens in a state voted to ban all guns? What if they voted to ban all guns except small firearms? This may sound like something I should know, but I am not American, so I have no idea. The introduction shows that the interpretation was historically controversial, but it says nothing about the present interpretation. If may be the case that the interpretation is still controversial, but in that case the introduction should clearly say it. It only says that "the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues", which is a debate about whether guns should be banned, but it is not a debate on the second amendment, which would be a debate on whether guns are actually banned. 209.120.171.227 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "topic" of this article isn't a person or a field or technology, it is a 27 word sentence. So, once we spend 27 words covering it, everything else is stuff related to it (history, interpretations, impacts etc.) I think that most of the things that you are seeking to learn involve other areas such as the US legal system  in relation to the constitution, and the interaction between the constitution and politics.   But in thinking through an answer to your question,  I realized that you are right, this article is unclear in a key area.  The (not unlimited) right for personal ownership of and main uses of firearms was basically unquestioned (and not dealt with in the courts) until the last few decades, at which time the interpretation of the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment became a topic of importance and debate.  The Heller decision decided the biggest questions, but, as in inherent in doing so, left large areas untouched, essentially leaving the untouched areas to the discretion of lawmakers and lower courts. We have an oddity that our amendments only limit what the Federal government can do to you until they are "incorporated" at which time they also limit what lower governments can do to you.   The McDonald case did this with the 2nd amendment.


 * There are folks here who wish that what I just described weren't so and in deference to them / in a spirit of compromise with them, I think that we have obscured it in this article. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are ample other articles about the socio economic and political ramifications of 2A elsewhere on Wikipedia. The purpose of this article is to document and present information about the Amendment itself. This article will (and should) never be what you are seeking. Furthermore, the characterization you have of the final sentence of the lead is exactly the kind of non-neutral point of view that we are going to great lengths to avoid.


 * Interestingly, I find your characterization of the last sentence of the introduction rather telling. Why do you think the debate between gun control and gun rights groups is about banning guns? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

After a couple of months working in the subject, I can finally see that what I wanted to look for in the article is actually in the third paragraph of the article, although it is written in such a way that an uninformed reador is not able to understand it. I am sure most contributors to this article are lawers that know perfectly well how common law works and the way it makes precedents binding. But many readers don't, especially those who are not lawyers and those who live in countries with different legal systems (like myself). I am aware that most English-speaking nations have common law, but wikipedia in English is read by many readers all over the world, and I guess you should make sure that a universal reader understands that two cases like those mentioned in the third paragraph have huge implications. 209.120.171.227 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I sympathize with your point, and am certainly open to improving the wording to address this issue - an article on the second amendment is not the place to describe how the entire system of American law (or any other country that is based on common law) works. Every page on every law or amendment would need to serve as a primer for the legal system in which it exists, which is not a viable model for an encyclopedia. I will think on wording that could help elucidate this issue without causing more problems than it fixes. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead revisited
I have edited the lead to be more neutral and remove a POV fork to another article that is hotly debated in the United States. I have removed the claim of what right the amendment protects and simply added the actual text as it reads.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the consensus-based Introduction. Please reach consensus here for any substantive change to the Introduction before making such change. Adding a quote of the amendment to the Introduction is redundant as the text of the amendment is already in the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It can't be redundant in the lead as the lead is for a summary of the sections and body of the article. I have reverted you as your edit summary is not satisfactory. One does not require to seek consensus for a bold edit and the above discussion seems to be pointed at other discussion. POV forks are against Wikipedia Policy and how that slipped by that entire discussion is odd, but I am challenging it now. The sentence is immediately contradicted by the actual lead itself where two conflicting Supreme court cases have placed the question as to whether the claim is accurate. There is no way we can claim that the second amendment is, what it was claiming to be and then leading the reader to an article that expands that point of view. Please discuss as you suggested, but I would request that reverts have more reasoning than against consensus. That means nothing without the proper context and I really don't see consensus for that alone. The rest of the lead as discussed in detail above has not been altered.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has reverted again, and asked for this to be "fleshed out on the talk page". So I will request further input from editors involved in the above discussion and the projects for further community input. This may have been brought up and was never fully discussed.


 * This seems to be something of a continuation of some other discussions. So I will proceed with caution as this is surely a hot button topic.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, responding only to previous) Mark, there are so many things messed up with your post and edit that it would take a long post to address them. First, you basis for the claim about SMP's edit summary is the exact reverse.....their made sense, and yours didn't )regarding a "fork"....where is the "fork" article? Second, you seemed to have picked up the the "bold" terminology form BRD but ignored the rest. (Starting with the "R"). Third, the lead is not only consensused, it has followed the definition by the highest authority (SCOTUS) North8000 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding North, Yes, I reverted a revert. One I found lacking of any actual reasoning on Wikipedia, regardless of your interpretation. The revert simply said "Gain consensus" and I don't have to, nor does anyone to make the edit, but defending the revert does take more than "there is a consensus". Highest authority...what does that even mean. They are a primary source. Analysis or interpretation of their wording is not for us and I see no RS to verify the claim that was made about what right the second amendment protects. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The other stuff aside, I seen the first sentence of the lead to be a 30,000' view of what the 2A does and that such is in very firm ground.   But it is just that, starting with the wording, with any big questions of the meaning of the wording having been clarified by SCOTUS.   But as with any one sentence, you can't read too much into it / must recognize the ambiguities of any one sentence.  For example, per the Scotus clarification it is not an unlimited & uncondtiional right nor is it one that unlimited conditions can be placed upon.  Similarly, "right" also needs clarification....for example in this case it is a restriction against governmental restrictions, not an entitlement in the sense that we have to buy people guns etc.   I think that the later sentences / content of the article need to be relied on to refine what can't be handled in a single sentence. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Supreme Court decisions are not primary sources. The Constitution is the primary source. SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous, and extremely inaccurate. Supreme Court decisions are primary sources and interpretations of their decisions are secondary. The constitution itself is indeed a primary source as well, but the two are separate documents. Can you demonstrate this suggestion?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The current language is appropriate, based on District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is supported by plenty of RS, such as the following secondary sources: Plus, primary sources are acceptable in this context, see WP:MOSLAW ("Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority."). Clearly an article about an amendment to the U.S. Constitution falls under MOSLAW. There is no need to change the lede. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Thus, the core Second Amendment right . . . is the individual right to keep and bear arms, specifically handguns, in self-defense." Jeff Golimowski, Note: Pulling The Trigger: Evaluating Criminal Gun Laws In A Post-Heller World49 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1599, 1616 (2012).
 * "In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court finally determined that the Second Amendment confers, at a minimum, an individual right to possess arms within one's home for the purpose of self-defense." Ben Howell, Come and Take It: The Status of Texas Handgun Legislation After District of Columbia v. Heller, 61 Baylor L. Rev. 215, 216 (2009).
 * "Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated the individual right to keep and bear arms established in Heller to all fifty states." Laura Mehalko, This Is Gun Country: The International Implications of U.S. Gun Control Policy, 35 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 297, 308 (2012).
 * " [I] n which it unambiguously held, for the first time in history, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Clark Neily, District of Columbia v. Heller: The Second Amendment Is Back, Baby, Cato Sup. Ct. Rev., 2007-2008, at 127.


 * Agree.  And to add suspenders to that belt, the syllabus is prepared by someone else (the reporter of decisions).  North8000 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A good deal of what I see above may also be countered with RS and I see no attempt to balance the lead or the rticle. In short, this is a political podium making claims that are contentious as if they ae fact and they are not. They are a summary of specific RS to prop up (from my view at least) a claim of what some feel the 2 amendment may be, but is argued otherwise. This article makes claims in Wikipedia's voice of authority as if this is set fact. it isn't.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lead is balanced, and it is a "set fact." The Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.  In the U.S., "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).  Once SCOTUS has said that this is what the Second Amendment says, that's it.  Other fringe views on what it means can be address in the main body of the article, so long as they are not given undue weight, but they do not merit inclusion in the lede.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse the hell out of me. Fringe theory did you say? I haven't said anything about any theories, yet you attack my post questioning the neutrality of this article that has a POV fork that directs the reader to that expressed opinion. Gee...how strong is that claim if you require a fork in the lead? And no...Once SCOTUS has spoken that is certainly not the end. There are certainly many people that debate that. Tell me something...why is your lead so short for a B article? Seriously. it is VERY clear that this article has declined to actually COVER the body of the article and you just admitted that anything that disagrees with your interpretation is fringe and doesn't go in the lead. Funny...I seem to remember the Prop 8 article being forced to show all sides even after the SCOTUS had handed down its decision. This is far from a B article and the lead is not neutral, makes claims as if there is no further debate and actually tells the reader to go to another article to reinforce that POV. Funny, but I do not remember the US Supreme Court going back in time and receiving this clarification. So I would expect an encyclopedia to be honest and state facts and not make claims. The truth is, if you wish to claim this individual right mandate from SCOTUS...you need to spell that out in the lead as you have it as if it has always been and everyone agrees and no problem exists with that interpretation. This isn't that other article. This is the article on the second amendment and you have cut the lead to a simple political agenda of stating only the outcome and not the history in a very convenient way. Very sad state this article is in. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are excused, and nowhere did I attack you or your post. Your reply does indicate a lack of understanding on the legal issues however.  In Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013), all SCOTUS decided was the standing issue.  The Court did not decide if gays had a constitutional right to marry, so the inclusion of various theories of the law is appropriate.


 * In both of the Second Amendment cases, SCOTUS was very clear that 1) it protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, and 2) it applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the law.  Any other view is not relevant to the application of the law, and is fringe.  For a good explanation on this, see Judge Posner's opinion in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012).  He clearly accepts that the SCOTUS opinion is the law - even though he just as clearly disagrees with it.


 * There is a distinct difference in a party not having standing to bring a case and SCOTUS affirmatively stating what rights are guaranteed by part of the Bill of Rights. Seriously.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, for the sake of clarification in this discussion, what's missing from the Lead? Many editors spent a considerable amount of time to craft as concise of a four paragraph lead as we could. I'm not saying there is not room for improvement, but the article is simply "about" the Amendment and its history (recent and less so) as the editor's note states. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel everything is over than you need not worry right? Yes, I see some time has gone into the discussion above. Time is of little consequence when the article is never finished and others feel that a B rating requires a summary of the body of the article, not just what a few editor think it is "about". The lead states point information in a manner that assumes no controversy when there is. State what the amendment says FIRST, then go into a brief summary of the article. Even if you make the claim of what the amendment is "said" to protects it needs to state when that interpretation was applied just like other articles.


 * Look, I have nothing against guns or the right to have them so don't assume I am just some anti gun nut wanting to pour my POV over the article. I understand the way SCOTUS works, I understand the way leads should be written and this is not a B lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, let's use the 15th amendment as a guide/example. It was controversial and then tested in/by Scotus.  Where is the kind of stuff that you are asking for in that article / article lead? North8000 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed court decisions are primary sources and articles should be based on secondary ones. North8000's comment that the meaning of the wording has been clarified by the Court is inaccurate. The Court may decided how a law should be interpreted, but what the law actually means should be determined by reference to secondary sources. It is worth noting that 4 justices dissented from the opinion. Also, the lead is misleading in that it implies the court decided that the right was a "natural right", when Justice Scalia, who is one of the foremost legal theorists in the U.S., rejects the concept of natural rights. The majority opinion of the Court was that it protected a positive right, i.e., whatever right the law allowed in 1789. TFD (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 justices dissenting is irrelevant as the majority opinion sets law. However, even within the dissenting opinions there was a unanimous holding that the second amendment protects an individual right. (As is explicitly stated in the dissent). You have asserted repeatedly that Scalia rejected a natural rights interpretation, but have yet to find a single source actually saying so in relation to Heller. Curious as the ruling repeatedly refers to natural rights. The asserted restriction to 1789 is likewise unsourced and WP:OR. You (and others) may certainly disagree as to what the amendment should mean, but what it currently legally does mean is not contested (although the bounds of the protection are certainly ambiguous at this point). /There are numerous secondary sources covering the individual rights ruling, so this should not be an issue. Stop making a WP:POINT. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided the sources in previous discussions and also mentioned that nowhere does the Court say that their decision is based on natural rights theory. The division between liberal supporters of natural rights theory and conservative supporters of originalism is central to American jurisprudence. While the Court is entitled to determine how a law should be interpreted, it does not override the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See this and GregJackP's comment from October 26. Also, the dissenting opinions are noted in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, the natural right mentioned in our lede is self defense, not rtkaba. The "natural right of self defense" is explicitly covered in the opinion. so your argument is a non-starter anyway. Neutrality says we accurately describe the law. There is ZERO controversy about what the law actually is. Some don't like it. Some want to change it. Great. We can talk about that. But it has zero impact on what the law actually is. I fully agree scalia is known for being dismissive of natural rights arguments in the past. You are correct, he does not specifically say "the rtkaba is a natural right". But he does explicitly say it is a fundamental right, and repeatedly and explicitly uses natural rights arguments to bolster his opinion. You may not like that, but you are not in the matrix. There is a spoon. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, you inference that there is some conflict between Scotus and neutrality is vague/unexplained, but I am guessing that you were implying that its finding was just an "opinion" on a disputed matter of the meaning. Since this is a matter of law, their finding is not an opinion on the reality, it is by definition/ defines the reality. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

indeed. I think a great analogous case is Abortion_in_the_United_States and Roe v. Wade where the topic is equally controversial and BOTH sides are unhappy with the RvW ruling (as well as unhappy with the later Casey decision) and debating what the law should be and how the rulings may be incorrectly decided (in the opinion of those arguers), but the article very plainly says what the rulings were and keeps the objections for the body.

Lede secondary sources

 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/30/shapiro-lifting-the-right-to-carry-firearms/
 * Justice Clarence Thomas noted that in the Heller case, the court guaranteed the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and explained that although the Heller court noted that “the right to self-defense is most acute in the home,” that does not mean that confrontation cannot be acute outside the home.Justice Thomas also explains this in constitutional terms by examining the specific text of the Second Amendment. He distinguishes the right to “keep arms” from the right to “bear arms,” saying that they are not one in the same.The right to keep arms means one has a right to keep a firearm in one’s home. The right to bear arms “implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”Justice Thomas mused, “To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage.”
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html
 * The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
 * Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.
 * The justices in the majority said that history supported both finding a fundamental individual right and applying it to state and local laws.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html
 * The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.
 * http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm
 * Alito determined that “self defense” is a fundamental right and central component of the 2nd Amendment, and the right to own a handgun is part of this basic right to self-defense.
 * Alito concluded that “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty”
 * http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/mcdonald-v-chicago/
 * Crucially, the Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun, rather than a collective right to gun ownership, which would allow citizens to form militias, for example, but would not preclude the government from outlawing individual handgun ownership.
 * same "it is clear" quote from above
 * http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426
 * That decision found that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" guaranteed by the Second Amendment applies to individuals outside the "well regulated militia" familiar to 18th-century Americans
 * (pre mcDonald, so has questions about incorporation) http://books.google.com/books?id=bytcCHS0gswC&pg=PA12&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f7luUsWDFMTQiwKb-IGYDA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=HtkphduskZ8C&pg=PA697&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f7luUsWDFMTQiwKb-IGYDA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false
 * "second amendment protected a personal right of individuals to possess firearms" http://books.google.com/books?id=f7m713xwK58C&pg=PA200&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f7luUsWDFMTQiwKb-IGYDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false
 * "the individual right to keep and bear arms" http://books.google.com/books?id=QGMcG2keWjAC&pg=PA191&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f7luUsWDFMTQiwKb-IGYDA&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false
 * also, the kagan confirmation testimony here is elucidating "Is there any doubt that after heller and McD that the 2 to the C secures a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self-defense in their home? "There is no doubt, that is binding precedent. settled law"
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=O4J7Db8P6nEC&pg=PA174&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wLpuUuOKHuWXiQLpyIHIAw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=L-YeIr8qmR8C&pg=PA57&dq=heller+individual+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wLpuUuOKHuWXiQLpyIHIAw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=heller%20individual%20right&f=false


 * To what extent should these be added to the article? They all look helpful. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments
It does not matter what other academics have opined on what the Second Amendment means. Those positions are neither the law, nor mainstream at this point. Legal academics are clear on what SCOTUS decided, and it is reflected in the article. Any contrary position should be covered in the body of the article, not the lede, and should not be given undue weight, any more than any other fringe theory is given. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Mark – welcome to 2A Talk. I read your claim about POV in the opening sentence and saw your proposed “fix”. I found your arguments unpersuasive. Simply adding the actual text when it is shown directly below seems redundant. The text says what it says. The meaning of the text is and has been open to conjecture, however it is SCOTUS’s duty to determine meaning and limitations of the amendment. All of this is covered in the lede. I am not sure what you mean by “POV fork” – if you are referring to the wikilink, where is that POV? Just saying something is POV doesn’t make it so. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Grahamboat, your argument is simply innacurate as the lead will be redundant as that is its purpose...to summarize what is in the article.


 * As for the claims of fringe view that is nonsense and very POV. Also WP:MOSLAW, states:"In general Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority".--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated: "Indeed court decisions are primary sources and articles should be based on secondary ones. North8000's comment that the meaning of the wording has been clarified by the Court is inaccurate. The Court may decided how a law should be interpreted, but what the law actually means should be determined by reference to secondary sources.". This article is a rather POV version of what some think the amendment means. Also of note is the comment that once SCOTUS has spoken, that's it is a false. It is never the end. It certainly isn't the end with DOMA now is it?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Scotus is not a source on the 2A, it is the definer of the reality. North8000 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that in further detail please?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court has been considered the official definer of what the Constitution means (see also City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)). That's why, for example, people who oppose the right to abortion accept that there currently is such a right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such a right exists and so there is such a right. The Supreme Court may overrule these rulings and thereby rule that there is no such Constitutional right, but until then there is such a right. A classic example of the Supreme Court doing this is regarding the liberty of contract (see Lochner v. New York (1905) and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)). The same is true of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled (see Heller and McDonald) that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms and so there is such a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court might overrule those decisions in the future, but has not yet done so and so there is such a right. SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the right, or even the definition of the right, but that the SCOTUS is not the last word on that right. They are but one part of the US government. But everything you just stated is original research and would require a source to be included in the actual article. I simply reject the reasoning that has been put forward and clearly others have as well. I see this as a very good candidate for WP:DRN.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for what I wrote above to be added to the article. You asked for further explanation and I gave it. What the Constitution legally means is determined by the Supreme Court. Others may disagree with specific interpretations the Supreme Court gives the Constitution or may even disagree with the Supreme Court having this authority, but the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution legally means. SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello......is this thing working? *Tap* *Tap* *Tap*.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, clearly explained what  said.  "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).  That's not an old, obsolete decision either.  See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2688 (2013), where the Court cites it for the DOMA decision, which is, BTW a final decision on the points before the Court.  SMP's example of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) is a perfect example, as is Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).  Other's may state what they believe the law should be, but that has no meaning.  Congress can pass a new law, but as long as the law remains unaltered, what SCOTUS says is in fact the last word.  That is also the clear consensus here.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not a clear consensus. If I were the only one arguing against that you might be correct, but I am not. If North feels that he need not answer to my request to expand on their comment that is clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Consensus is not what everyone agrees with, it is what everyone can live with and clearly that is not the case here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? I count the following as saying that the lede is correct, that SCOTUS has spoken and the other views should be addressed in the body:
 * Gaijin42, Grahamboat, GregJackP, North8000, Scalhotrod, SMP0328
 * Against that view is:
 * Mark Miller, TFD
 * Uh, that's a 3:1 ratio, or 75%-25%. That's a pretty clear consensus.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a count of !votes. That is not a clear consensus. That doesn't even count as a rough consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said it was a count of !votes. You do have 75% of the editors who are commenting all saying the same thing.  Legal minds also say the same thing.  Take for example the opinion in Moore v. Madigan cited above.  Judge Posner is well known for disagreeing with the view that the 2A grants an individual right to firearms.  However he also understands that once SCOTUS has spoken, the debate on what the law means is over.


 * You are also wrong about consensus - it is not what "everyone" can live with, it is what the clear majority believes to be. See WP:CONSENSUS.  Finally, you appear to be the only one who has an issue with this.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But...I feel the best way forward may be an alternative to DR/N. I shall consider our options.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, in case you are not familiar, a few editors aren't on and editing Wikipedia 24/7. So your "tap tap" and "If North feels that he need not answer to my request to expand on their comment" inferences might be appropriate 1-3 days later but are pretty silly and inappropriate 1 and 2 hours later. And your building your "I didn't hear that" crap and stupidly linking to the disruption page based on that/your silly mis-action is badly out of line and bordering on a personal attack. STOP. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question, the 2A is a US legal mechanism, and Scotus (where it has ruled) is ultimate and final DEFINER of (not source on) what the amendments legally mean. And in the US, the official legal meaning is the REALITY with respect to a legal instrument. A statement of what the 2A does is a statement of its legal meaning and legal effects. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding documents the decision itself in the document (not the summary) is the words of the justices and their decision and is a primary source on what the court has defined. The syllabus portion of the document was written by someone else. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * North...I asked the question 2 minutes after you left the comment. Just because you immediately walked away, please do not make sound as if I was being impatient. You just made what we call a drive by comment. I was actually expecting that you would simply return the comment as you appeared to be editing at that time. If you really feel a personal attack was made...report it, but please do not pretend it to be "reality". I also feel you explanation is just far from what SCOTUS is for. It does NOT define a reality of any kind it merely interprets what they feel at the moment. They were not there 200+ years ago so it is impossible for them to know the reality of that time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "They were not there 200+ years ago so it is impossible for them to know the reality of that time." -- An accurate statement, but not relevant to this article or to the role of SCOTUS in saying what the law means.  GregJackP   Boomer!   20:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mark, "impatient" was also the case but not what I wrote about.   I wrote about insulting comments and beyond-ridiculouous false accusation which you built upon that unwarranted impatience. And  my statement was to stop it, not that I wanted to report you for what you already did. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I wrote: "Hello...North8000...is this thing working? *Tap* *Tap* *Tap*.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)" That isn't impatience, its using humor with a ping. Clearly you did not like it and took it far beyond what it was intended as...a humorous ping.
 * You neglected to mention your second post with a link to wp:disruption. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean this: "If North feels that he need not answer to my request to expand on their comment that is clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". Sure, I can see calling that impatient. But I can also see it as stating that if you didn't reply yourself it would be. There is a lot of editors answering for and explaining for others. I assume AGF but also but wanted to make sure you knew I was waiting for your answer. Apologies for that specifically if that was what really ticked you off.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But back to this: "Scotus (where it has ruled) is ultimate and final DEFINER of (not source on) what the amendments legally mean" No, they are not. Actually, the people are. And that is more than a political statement. It is fact, as the US constitution may be amended by the people and has many times to add and subtract "rights". Period. But there is more "argument" against you suggestion that SCOTUS "defines reality" and that is SCOTUS itself (Bolding/linking added for emphasis): "As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution." They are not the ultimate and final definer of reality or "what the constitution is". They are the final arbiters and merely interpret what the constitution seems to be to them with what they know at that time. So, for example, as with the DOMA decision, we still have the Secretary of Defense coming public to announce that something like 9 national guard units are refusing to comply with that decision. I do not know what reality we have here, but clearly SCOTUS was not the decider of it to those posts. As we have discussed with abortion, SCOTUS never decided a reality in Texas that many would argue (and at least on court) are unconstitutional laws, disregarding the SCOTUS decision of Roe vs Wade. Politics is a factor and cannot be excluded from the claim you made. Simply put...no, the United States Supreme Court does not define the constitution or its amendments. They interpret them and they are by no means the final word. There are always options. They are not dictators or emperors. They are Justices on the highest tribunal in the US. But that does not give them god like power or in anyway state or imply omnipotence.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a lot mixed up there, but I'll just stick to the core point rather than getting into all of those.  I never said all of those straw man variants that you are saying Scotus isn't.  (dictators, emperors, "define the constitution", "god like", "omnipotence" etc.)    Back to what I actually said, in areas that they have ruled, they DEFINE the operative, legal reality of the amendment.  So, for the purposes of a statement of what the 2A does, where they have ruled they define that reality of what it does. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No they don't, and I have at least provided a reference to verify my claims from the SCOTUS website that they are merely the highest tribunal in the US with the right to arbitrate controversial subjects, and do not define a "legal reality" but simply interpret the constitution. I have no idea where you get the term "Legal reality" from. What does that mean exactly?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to use words that help explain it. Maybe this "shorthand" statement will help. If Scotus says that the XYZ amendment prevents the government from outlawing purple cats, then, the legal, operative reality is that the XYZ amendment prevents the government from outlawing purple cats. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No that didn't help and still makes a false argument of a "legal, operative reality" that somehow prevents the people from enacting their First amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow Mark, No. Respectfully, you need a crash course in our form of government. We do not live in some kind of Ochlocracy...rights cannot be just added or subtracted by some mob depending on their whim or their state of ignorance. Here, study this, "we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are, life liberty...." Our rights are Self-evident and they are inalienable regardless of the degree of idiocracy that the mob descends to. They can't be added or subtracted!!! We enshrined a few common ones so we wouldn't have to argue over blatantly well established truths. But make no mistake, shredding the constitution would not remove these rights even if 99% of the people voted to do so! All our rights like the right to free speech and to bear arms arise from a much more fundamental place as Jefferson explained. My gosh, I take a break and come back to this? Thank you North8000, you stay true to the compass.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, what you are saying isn't even about this article anymore. You're not talking about what the Second Amendment means. Under your viewpoint, the Second Amendment means whatever the American People nationally, or the People in each State, want it to mean from time to time. That's not how things work in this country. If it did, the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. SMP0328. (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was discussing the single ideal that the last ruling by SCOTUS is the final word on a legal reality. Don't blame me for the abstract manner or course the discussion took. The point is, the US Supreme Court is not the actual final end to the legality of any interpretation they make.


 * But my actual point in the lead is the way it is written to exclude the other rights and matters that the amendment grants and that the lead fails to summarize the article in a proper manner. I strongly feel that the lead is giving undue weight to the fork article, Right to keep and bear arms in the United States which makes the summary very ambiguous where it should merely summarize what the "established" rights are and how they were established. That article is a fork right now only because you have to go there to find out the information you should be reading in this lead. You can link the article...but you still have to say more here. I think this article should be C class article at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No Mark, it appears you are POV pushing. I read the other amendment entries and they have protect, prohibit etched in their summaries.  I don't see you there lobbying to adjust those entries.  Why this one?  Here read this,


 * I don't hear you arguing that this interpretation of the first is a POV fork.....why? Because you agree with the cited interpretation? There is a plain and self evident interpretation. You're POV pushing. Sorry......and yes, you're responsible for lapses in logic when you are refuted.  By my count there are 7 editors who are making very strong refutations here and it's you that are guilty of WP:ididnthearthat.  The WP:consensus is not just clear, you are refuted thoroughly.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark if you were operating in good faith, you'd be lobbying for only the text to be included in all the bill of right ledes. You're transparent in your actions here.  Please respect the consensus here. And no yet another drn will not be helpful nor help your cause.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If you had stuck with just your argument and not unfounded accusations against me, I would have respected that, but...what is at issue is this; The First Amendment article is linking to actual clauses such as the Establishment Clause which is a part of THIS series of articles. However, on the Second Amendment article the link is, one - changed to add the wording "of the people" to the article it links to...which is about a concept not a clause and two - not a part of this series of articles which leads me to believe it is a POV fork.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask once for you to stop the disruption. You've made your argument, but no one has accepted it, while numerous editors have explained the SCOTUS role and process to you.  You need to drop the stick and please stop.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If we treat court decisions as holy writ, it means that the Constitution never meant African Americans to be citizens or have any rights, because that was the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, and has never been overturned. Does that mean we should say the 2A was meant to protect the rights of white people?  TFD (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) was only good law for 12 years. It was superseded by Constitutional Amendment on Jan. 1, 1868.  A simple check of Westlaw or Lexis showed that information.  Anyone with any amount of legal training would have been able to tell you that.  No one said that only SCOTUS could overturn previous SCOTUS decisions.  Here Congress did it by the amendment process of Art. V, U.S. Constitution.  It's part of the system of checks and balances.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed GregJackP, the checks and balances are there in an attempt to safeguard liberty itself for the people. No one branch of government supersedes the other.  Thank you for being a voice of reason. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the Dred Scott decision was never overturned because as you say, the constitution was amended in 1868, it would mean that the constitution denied citizenship and rights to African Americans. So we should say that the Second Amendment as written did not apply to African Americans, because obviously the Court could never be wrong despite the fact that legal scholars today overwhelmingly believe they were.  TFD (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you want to make a legitimate point and have a real discussion. I'm not going to engage in a debate over an issue that was not raised in the previous discussion, was not advocated by anyone on this talkpage, is an overly simplistic view of the issue, and is idiotic.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   13:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote above, "It does not matter what other academics have opined on what the Second Amendment means. Those positions are neither the law, nor mainstream at this point. Legal academics are clear on what SCOTUS decided, and it is reflected in the article. Any contrary position should be covered in the body of the article, not the lede, and should not be given undue weight, any more than any other fringe theory is given." Dred Scott proves that you are wrong.  TFD (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, SCOTUS can overturn itself. Yes, there can be constitutional amendments. None of that has any relevance on what the law means now. Above you are absolutely correct, the application of the constitution DID deny citizenship and rights to African Americans, until later amendments and SCOTUS rulings. GJP's statement is also entirely correct. The academics are irrelevant, right up until SCOTUS/amendments take action. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) What matters is what the Supreme Court currently says the Second Amendment means. What it said the Second Amendment meant in 1857 does not belong in the Introduction. Dred Scott was overruled in 1868 by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision is no longer good law and no longer defines any part of the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for lead
First, I propose to remove the wording "of the people" and simply link the concept as Right to keep and bear arms in the United States. I believe that is a reasonable proposition. Second, I would like to begin discussing bringing that article into this series of articles if appropriate and continue to discuss expanding the lead further the best we can to include some history, as the First Amendment article does.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Right to keep and bear arms is the "Right to Arms Clause" and more important there is also a "Militia Clause" which is missing and one of the other major issues I see with the lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead should begin something like this: --Mark Miller (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your reference is to lecture notes which were last updated in 2003 and, so, are out-of-date. SCOTUS held in 2008 that the prefatory clause merely announced a purpose and did not limit the operative clause. (That fact is found in the current article along with opposing views.) That being the case, bringing up the prefatory clause in the lead seems undue and may confuse the reader.
 * I'm confused by your suggestion above. Your original bold change was to add the text of the amendment to the lead, but now you propose to remove a phrase which is also found in that text. I don't see how removing that phrase improves the reader's understanding of the amendment. Nor does it seem to me to improve on a consensus reached only two months ago. Can you explain your reasoning? Celestra (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are older and yes to what SCOTUS held in 2008, but are you saying they are inaccurate? There are two clauses, and we are not mention one because it seems undue and may confuse the reader. Hmm. OK. I see. I disagree of course but I understand your reasoning. --Mark Miller (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a reliable source for the law, and it is not an accurate statement of law as regards the militia. The creation and organization of the militia falls under U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 16.  In 2008, SCOTUS ruled that the prefatory clause only announced a purpose.  See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My original bold change was a rather feeble attempt at a more neutral approach to what I felt was a POV fork away from this series of articles. The removal of the wording is precisely because that article's title does not use it and is more accurate in that is isn't the wording we are mentioning but the provision or clause, like the First Amendment article. It is not the only provision of the second amendment. While that article is brand new, it also doesn't seem a mess. It could use an edit here and there but that is irrelevant to the fact that I think that is all we have. If so we should incorporate it into this series, but it could use similar wording to define the clause itself and approach it in that manner, which the other similar articles do. And as I said, right now it doesn't mention the militia clause. Certainly we are not saying that SCOTUS has removed that clause or that their interpretations and rulings superceed it to the point of oblivion?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, it seems that your edits (and/or opinions) might be more appropriate for the Heller case article since you are arguing what SCOTUS has the power to do or not. A similar comparison could be made with the 14th Amendment and Roe v. Wade articles. I'm not disputing your points, they just seem to be out of place. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be misinterpreting what I was arguing with those examples, but what I am proposing is actually based on a few things. First, lets assume the one portion of importance to most editors in the individual right to bear arms. Lets just agree to preserve that in some fashion as I am not arguing against it being established. But that the way it is written is even inaccurate when it says the Second Amendment "Protects" this right. No, it establishes this right. As I said, the portion added is not really from the title it links, but to a portion of the amendment. Why not write it:


 * "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution establishes the individual right to keep and bear arms along with a need to maintain a well regulated militia".


 * Perhaps we could even begin an article for this series that treats that subject of the militia clause in a similar manner?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That could even say that the militia clause establishes the individual clause (per what Celestra brought up) in some manner. I do not believe it will confuse the reader to explain this. Why exclude it?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your latest suggestion would be fine except Heller held that it protects the right and nothing I have read has ever claimed that the Second Amendment establishes a need to maintain a well-regulated militia. The holding in Heller means that the prefatory clause has very little to do with understanding what the Second Amendment means, so it does not need to be brought up in the lead.
 * Your reasoning that we should remove "of the people" because the article we link to has a different phrase in its name is not convincing. Since when does the title of the linked article drive the link text? Do you have any reasoning for suggesting that removal which involves improving the reader's understanding of the subject? Celestra (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's because the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment does not establish the militia. The militia is established under the authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 16.  What Mark is proposing is original research, based on his view, and unsupported by legal scholarship.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for discussing this with me.

You say that the Heller decision declares that the amendment protects the right to bear arms. That is not all it says. What it says is: "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 then gives a series of reasons that do not discount the militias or its role in establishing this "protection".

''(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.''

''(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.''

I don't believe the statement is fully accurate when phrased in that manner. It could just as easily state: "protects an individual right to bear arms (and here I might add an explanatory note about the limitations Heller mentions) and preserves the idea of a citizens militia". Or "Protects the right of the individual to bear arms (note), by preserving the ideal of a citizens’ militia".

I am a bit surprised by the protection wording. But then the justices are not saying the constitution established that right, but that states had already established the right and that it was and has been historically a valid and ancient right. So do have to concede to your point on that.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Yes, I do object to the use of "of the people" but not just because it is not in the title of the link. Nothing establishes that at all but the wording in the amendment which you also seem to forget does state "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" I think that Heller itself does establish that militias are needed as well but that is still not being stated. I see further use of the wording here when the whole text is excluded to be a form of POV and undue by kinda cherry picking from the primary source. As I said, the part here is the clause or concept not that specific wording.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * An additional way to look at it and end up the same way: The court found that the first part is a preface, the second part is the operative part. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let us go by what the article itself says: "The majority opinion held that the amendment's prefatory clause (referencing the "militia") serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing "the people"), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because "the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'....""


 * So, again, why cherry pick "The people" for the lead and exclude the "militia"? What the court found North was that the "prefatory" clause actually clarifies the "operative" clause. It just doesn't limit the operative clause in scope because of the historic context at that time did include individuals". That also demonstrates clearly that the Second Amendment has two clauses which should be mentioned in some fashion in the lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that a statement of what the amendment DOES is the operative clause. And sentence #1 is a statement of what it DOES. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And what I am saying is that this is about both clauses and how they effect each other and what the amendment DOES is not the operative clause. What it DOES is protect the operative as established in the prefatory.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mark, your proposal dilutes the operative clause from the common accepted and Supreme Court decided definition. And your proposal is not acceptable The amendment mentions the people as the ones having that right, why would we drop that from the summary? No, you're POV pushing again. The militia clause is just the rationale to document the right in the amendment.  The amendment doesn't create militias per se. Why did you open this thread, yet again!  The editors here are very patient and good people but you are just disrupting.  -Justanonymous (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, this is how we form a consensus. We discuss ways to improve the article. It isn't disruptive to discuss that nor is it POV pushing when I am not pushing any point of view. As I said, there is no reason "the People" needs to be mentioned when it isn't the clause itself. The clause itself is the right of the individual as mentioned in the amendment itself as "the people", but does not discount the militia clause just because its prefatory. I very much disagree with your interpretation that it is just the rationale to document the right as if that means it deserves no mention and is nothing. I opened this thread because I feel the lead needs improvement and seems less than neutral and doesn't have a small amount of history to give context to where the amendment stands now. I find that all editors are actually very patient and have had discussions with many of them that have lasted weeks. I recognize that people have very firm ideas and opinions on the subject and the article but know we have the ability in all cases to bring up issues we see on the article talk page. I am sorry if your patience is wearing thin, but do not believe I am being disruptive at all. If I have not convinced just those involved here, then maybe it is best to leave neutral messages on the project pages to bring more eyes. I feel that much is needed at least in order to gauge whether or not to make a more formal RFC.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know off hand why this article was delisted from GA. Is there a link to the reassessment? I will return to the discussion later today. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors here have been here for a decade so they understand policy and the definition of consensus. You are being disruptive  as numerous editors have disagreed with your thesis and presented compelling rationales for why you are not correct and yet you refuse to acknowledge the strong consensus against your editing.  Again, "The People" is mentioned in the amendment itself so it is appropriate to reference them and makes the description more correct.  The concept of the right to bear arms is an ancient concept that dates back to antiquity to the age of Aristotle and Plato so it's most certainly not a POV fork.  Unfortunately, your feelings are not shared by 7 other experienced editors and they've presented strong rationale and refutation.  On the RFC matter, please - we do one of these every month and it's just the same dozen editors that show up.  Just let it go - you're not going to win this one. By the way, your way of argumentation is not very sound....you're saying that because you don't like it the way it is and because all of the other editors don't agree with your thesis that we should put the article the way you want it?????? That's just utter garbage.  Sorry.  Please stop disrupting this page.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know which editors your refer to that have been here a decade. I have been on Wikipedia for about 7 years and you, almost two years (registered and say ten years as an IP) but I fail to see what point that makes. If you truly feel this is disruptive then perhaps you should seek assistance. But, you might want to AGF, not make unfounded accusations and remain civil. Demanding me to stop the discussion and stating that 7 editors have disagreed with my "thesis" is not fully accurate and I have also agreed with some of what is being said and some of my concerns addressed appropriately and have adjusted my proposals from that. I do not believe I have crossed a line into disruption and strongly believe this article can use a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to discuss the issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS is the final authority on what the constitution means. Short of a hypothetical future SCOTUS ruling, or a revolution which washes away the constitution and precedent, their word IS law. This is exceptionally settled caselaw, and extremely widley accepted academic consensus, and wikipedia consensus. Yes they can change their mind later, that means nothing about what we should write in the article today. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside opinion. It is true that the 2nd Amendment "protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement." It is also true that it "establishes the right to keep and bear arms and a need to maintain a well regulated militia." All these facts are true and should be included in the article. The question is, which is more appropriate for the lead sentence? I believe that Mark Miller's proposal is a better lead sentence for three reasons. (1) It has been widely agreed to be true throughout the entire history of the 2nd Amendment's existence, from its creation until today, unlike the current lead sentence. (2) It mentions more of the contents of the 2nd Amendment. (3) It better matches the title of the Right to keep and bear arms in the United States article. Please understand: I do not think this article should minimize the importance of the 2nd Amendment, given the rulings of Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. And I do not think the article should imply ambiguity about whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the people, since SCOTUS has left no ambiguity about this. But it's important for the lead sentence to describe the topic of the article in the clearest, best way possible, and I believe Mark Miller's version does this best. – Quadell (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Mark's version actually is not supported at all. Even under the Miller era mindset, the 2nd did not create any obligation to create a militia, so "need to maintain a well regulated militia" is pure WP:OR.  The "bill of rights" creates rights - it does not create obligations/needs. An accurate reading of the "militia-right" would be that individuals had the right to be a member of a militia, or that states had the right to create a militia, but both of those views have been explicitly rejected in Heller/McDonald, and Miller did not go there, miller merely said that the 2nd only protected weapons "bearing a reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a well regulated militia". Mark's reading is categorically wrong under Heller, but is even wrong under the collective rights viewpoint.  Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , are you aware that the statement is legally inaccurate? The need for a militia is in the Militia Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, Section 8? We've got a redirect to the right location in the Constitution, and it is not the Second Amendment. The Court was clear on what the prefatory clause meant, see:
 * "According to the Court, the meaning of the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment should be consistent with the meaning and history of the operative one. First, the opinion called attention to the fact that the Constitution referred to the pre-existing militias and not to ones that would later come to be. "Well regulated" meant nothing more than a properly disciplined and trained militia, which would be crucial to the security of a free state. As to the phrase "security of a free state," the Court interpreted the word "state" as any political entity and stated that the Constitution could be read as addressing a free country. Accordingly, the Court claimed that the constitutional text did no more than affirm that the existing trained militias were essential to the security of a free country. Thiago Luiz Blundi Sturzenegger, The Second Amendment's Fixed Meaning and Multiple Purposes, 37 337, 366-67 (2013), quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595-98 (2008).
 * "Nothing in the prefatory clause indicates that the sole reason that the right to keep and bear arms exists was to maintain the militia." Brian Roth, Reconsidering a Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the Wake of the Aurora, Oak Creek, and Portland Shootings: Is it Constitutional in the Post-Heller Era?, 37 405, 416 (2013).
 * The problem is that Mark's view of the Second Amendment is not the same as what the Supreme Court had, and while we can talk about minority and fringe views in the body of the article (so long as they are not given undue weight). It does not belong in the lede. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion for lead sentence
How about this? The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and this also applies against state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, but these amendments do not prevent reasonable gun regulation. After all, the amendment does not protect the right from infringement by Starbucks or any other private actor, nor does it prevent the government from regulating nuclear arms, nor from keeping all weapons out of the hands of temporary residents from other countries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly much better than the previous proposal. I would change the "right does not prevent" to "amendment/protection does not prevent" or some such though. Also technically "Americans" may be wrong, as there have been rulings saying that it applies to non-citizens as well. (Although there have been rulings specifically saying it does not apply to illegal immigrants. (Complicated somewhat by the fact that some of the immigrant cases have also relied on state constitutions, some of which specify "people" and not "citizens" in their 2A equivalents. In any case, I think the law is ambiguous enough in that regard that we should not specify who it applies to past "individuals"Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed "right" to "amendment" as you suggested. But "Americans" seems apt; click on that link and you'll see it includes permanent residents who are not citizens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrm, well I still think how it applies to non citizens is ambiguous, but I wont strongly object, lets see what others say. I'd also change the "right also applies against" to protection in the state sentence, for the same reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I crossed out "right" but it doesn't seem to need to be replaced with anything. Also cleaned up and tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the language, but it is head and shoulder's better than the original proposal. What about (with markup): The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on this right, and this the right also applies against state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment ., but the right The amendment does not prevent reasonable regulation of firearms.


 * Clean version:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on this right, and the right also applies against state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment.The amendment does not prevent reasonable regulation of firearms.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the last sentence is problematic. We don't know if there are any exceptions or whether it allows regulations.   We don't say this in the other amendments, why on this one??  Seems like weasel wording.  Who defines reasonable? District of Columbia?  Chicago PD?-Justanonymous (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * also problematic is the word americans.  The amendment talks of the people.  I'm ok with "the people".-Justanonymous (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, try this: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, and this also applies against state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, but these amendments do not entirely prevent gun regulation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Better. how to summarize the following quote is a bit tough, and certainly an area in which both side's POV are certainly coloring their statements. Ultimately SCOTUS will be deciding what is reasonable or not based on what cases they take, and what they overturn (or dont overturn) - not much we can say in wiki's voice at this point, so I think what is proposed is as far as the lede can go. We can put a few of the POV statements later in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @ - I prefer the term "reasonable regulation" but that is because of the wording of McDonald, speaking of the amici briefs of 38 states, supporting McDonald as petitioner and the ability of the "State and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3046 (2010) (emphasis added).  Reasonable is also a legal term of art, referring to the fictional "reasonable person", which the fact-finder is supposed to be when determining issues in court.  Typically that will be the jury.  The term is widely used in the legal world.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying it doesn't entirely prevent regulation is slightly better, I think, because it allows for judges to add other adjectives like "reasonable and/or necessary" or "reasonable and/or traditional". The amendment itself just says "well-regulated".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like that this gets us away from the current "protects ... from infringement" wording, but I think it is too much for one sentence and brings in points already presented in the remainder of the lead. Can I suggest:
 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal, state and local governments from infringing upon the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. The amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation.
 * The first sentence summarizes the current state of affairs and leaves the details of incorporation to the third or fourth paragraph. The second sentence clarifies that reasonable regulation does not infringe upon that right. (We lost that clarification at some point.) Celestra (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can live with this. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If others are OK with it, (e.g. I didn't miss anything) I am OK with it. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

no objection, but reserve the right for future tweaks of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't endorse the lead sentence suggesting that any part of the Bill of Rights is applicable against the states, without at least mentioning that the Fourteenth Amendment makes it so. The Second Amendment very clearly did not apply against the states prior to the Civil War, and it has not been amended since then.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What if we say this:
 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing upon the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. This amendment applies to state and local governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 * This makes clear what the amendment does and refers to the fact that it applies to the States and localities via incorporation. It also includes a wikilink to the incorporation article via the word "applies". SMP0328. (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are going to split it that way, I don't think we should mention Federal govt in the first sentence, as the statement is not correct as a standalone item. This is similar to how the other amendments are covered. First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents infringement upon the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. Originally the restriction only applied to the federal government, but was incorporated against state and local governments via the 14th amendment. }}

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Change "federal government" to "federal government", "incorporated" to incorporated", "states" to "states", and "14th amendment" to "Fourteenth Amendment". If these changes are made, I'll agree to Gaijin42's wording. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We discuss incorporation in the second half of the third paragraph, so could we just drop the second sentence now that the first doesn't say "federal government"? And, for balance, include the bit about not prohibiting all gun regulation?
 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents infringement upon the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. The amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation.

Also, "infringement upon"? Isn't there a way to say this that is more immediately meaningful to the average reader. Celestra (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * again the last sentence is problematic. We don't say that the first amendment prohibits people from yelling fire in auditorium or FCC regulation of the spectrum......why here??-2600:1011:B028:DFC:31B2:9C81:2DF1:A6CA (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict, and not responding to 2600's comment which I don't understand)Regarding incorporation, that is sort of an arcane general constitutional item that I would tend to not put into the first sentence. So I recommend not, but am not strongly against it. Celestra, if you have a better idea that would be good, but that going to be a tough one. When in doubt, the "infringe" is from the 2A itself. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could say "applies" with it wikilinked to Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. SMP0328. (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I like a lot of the wording here and think I see a possible way to incorporate a good deal of the thoughts from above, if not the exact wording. First, what I think is important with these amendment articles is what they specifically do. With the First Amendment it was to prohibit a number of things: "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits...". I believe editors have established that what the second amendments does, by explanation from SCOTUS and secondary, RS confirm, is "protect". So I tend to support first and foremost describing the amendment as a protection and not as a prevention. Reasoning being that.. the court separates the amendment into two clauses that, in the 1st point of their decision is that the Second Amendment "protects" what it does, because it was already established in a number of ways that they demonstrate verbally in their writings. The discussion of the prefatory and the operative give some guidance at least, what not to dismiss.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, historically established to maintain a well regulated militia.

I don't think we need to say "American" but be specific as to how that is defined and what we are talking about are citizen rights. An individual right to keep and bear arms. I also feel we should mention the militia as simply as possible and perhaps as the discussion have indicated, the operative clause is the right to bear arms and the prefatory right is the militia. Mentioning this simply clarifies why we mention TRTBA before the militia if the militia is the prefatory.. I think this could be followed with either an explanatory note (which I prefer) or additional wording that states something like:

This right has some limitations. (ad an explanatory note here)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, giving that one purpose is not correct. North8000 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By "that one", do you mean the limitations mention? Should we drop that portion?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later)  No, the statement of the militia as the purpose. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you North8000. The proposal by Mark is not accurate. Even SCOTUS noted that the militia was not the most important reason. Plus, the creation of the militia and Congressional/State authority over the Militia is governed not by the Second Amendment, but Article I. That version is not acceptable and is not mainstream. The limitation comment is also not appropriate.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I see what you are stating North. So you disagree that the right to bear arms clause in the Second Amendment is clarified through the militia clause as a historic make up of individual citizens? Or you just feel that we do not need to mention the militia at all. I ask this as yet no one has addressed how we simply dismiss a clause in the amendment that is the clarifying factor to the individual right. I feel the discussion has clearly shown there are indeed two clauses that the article should touch on. I don't know if we can actually say that SCOTUS has said the militia was not the most important reason. Reason for what? The individual right? In the last SCOTUS case they basically did say that the militia was the main issue of the amendment for individual rights even before the amendment was written. They stated this was to keep antifederalist from trying to take away an ancient right that was the basis to how a citizen militia is formed. I strongly disagree With North800 and GregJackP that this needs to be excluded and I actually feel the two clauses need to be the first things addressed in the lede as encyclopedic, impartial, accurate and NPOV. I propose another version:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, historically needed to maintain a well regulated militia. The amendment does not prohibit all gun regulation and has some restrictions,

Incorporating some of 's wording.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The law is settled and very clear on the matter
 * Yes, it is, but how that should be summarized and what is settled seems to be in contention.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is only in contention by you. The rest of us agreed that the "militia" did not need to be mentioned in the lede.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The holding of heller is that it protects an individual right.
 * Heller is not the only consideration.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, McDonald is also important, which also reiterated that this was an individual right.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * the dicta talk quite a bit about the militia, but they made no ruling about the militia
 * This is an important distinction but also shows no ruling against the militia and in fact explains how the militia


 * except that the right to keep and bear arms is protected even if unconnected and unrelated to service in a militia
 * Now I see some headway on some common ground here And something to consider.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * the milita itself is largely irrelevant in modern context due to the army, and national guard (short of a hypothetical unorganized militia rebellion)
 * I tend to think it to be something like a point of view to assume certain things into why we shouldn't mention something.

You have many points in this argument that seem to be about the militia as a clause and feel the argument somewhat self defeating.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * though note that the militia statutes still have the unorganized militia as all able-bodied males.
 * I really don't see the relevance.


 * therefore the practical effect of the amendment is just the individual right to keep and bear arms
 * I really do think that is simply original research. Synthesis. Putting together facts to make another fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is original research. Yours.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of secondary sources discussing the impact of the 2A post-heller talk about its effect on individual rights, and what the extent of the granted protection is, and do not give any significant ink to militia issues (with the exception of those trying to argue heller is wrongly decided)
 * But, almost all of them mention it in some manner.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We can certainly cover the historical militia context in the body, and a brief mention in the lede may be appropriate, but it is undue in the opening sentences.

This was the best way for me to address this, but if you want I can edit it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We also need to clarify something here. Mark keeps mentioning the "militia" clause as if it is in the Second Amendment--it is not.  The Militia Clause has always been Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.  That did not change with Heller or McDonald.  The prefatory clause, as explained by the Court, has no bearing on the individual right to self-defense.  This is getting ridiculous.  Mark's position is not mainstream, is not accurate, and appears to be WP:OR.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, congressional powers are a separate issue. That is arguing with original research. That simply does not negate the fact the militia clause here is different in how it is being treated as protection of an ancient right. Per Heller, sources, both primary and secondary.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
OK, let me try again:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. The amendment does not prohibit all gun regulation and has some restrictions,--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "some restrictions"? I think you are referring to statutory restrictions, but the above wording sounds like you are claiming the amendment contains restrictions. Please clarify. SMP0328. (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. That does sound vague. Some stronger verbiage may be needed here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable as written. It is inaccurate and misleading, and incorporates original research.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to the basics:
 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from infringing upon the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. This amendment applies to state and local governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment allows for some gun regulations.
 * This is very close to what everyone was agreeing to earlier.  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I really do feel that claiming the Second Amendment to be preventive of what the federal government can do is not accurate to what the amendment is and does first and foremost, and that is as protection of right and how that right is exclusive regardless of militia involvement. I don't see the relevance of discussing another amendment in the lede this way. I am not convinced this is exactly accurate written in this manner and seems very confusing. I still suggest something like this:


 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia. The amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I decided to try to be bold and edit this into the article. I also made another small correction regarding the wording in the lede about "the rest" of the Bill of Rights to clarify the first ten amendments that made up the Bill of Rights.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After three edits (well, 4, it still counted the save I interrupted to correct spelling) to that afterwards, adding some wording from the Bill of Rights article this, I think covers a great deal of what has been discussed:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation. It does limit both the state and local governments to the same extent of the federal government from infringing this right. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks reasonably good to me. One issue the "unconnected" makes a main important point, (that the right exists independent of militia)  but could be taken a 2nd  wrong way. (excluding militia-related right)    We probably should work on it more here before putting it in. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that the Court did not predicate the right on service or lack of service with the militia. The Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms was a right that existed before the Constitution was formed, a "pre-existing" or natural right.  "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876), “ [t] his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."  Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (edit in original).  If we are going to include any statement on the militia, then we need to clarify that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural or pre-existing right.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later) I agree 100%. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should explain that the reason I stuck with "American" as a link only with the wording as citizen in the prose was due to a few legitimate concerns expressed and that I felt in regards to the accuracy in encyclopedic terms. American can mean many things but even that article does specify "citizen". I do believe the shortened reference to the prefatory clause and the specific wording is both accurate and covers my major concerns in at least covering the scope of each clause.
 * The wording "The right is not unlimited" has been merged from the Bill of Rights article's Second Amendment section but keeps Anythingyouwant's basic concept along with it, that the amendment does not mean it prevents reasonable gun regulation by saying "does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation" as this was more neutrally worded. Finally I did believe that we had to include the last big clarification from SCOTUS about state and local governments. It will seem redundant because it is mentioned in the lede further down when discussing the case itself, but I would defend it here as more important if there were a choice. But we can either just leave that for now or give the lower portion a small general edit for brevity and reduce redundancy.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the pre-existing or natural right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation. It does limit both the state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent of the federal government from infringing this right. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. This clarifies that the Court stated that this was a right that pre-dates the Constitution, in the same manner as the First and Fourth Amendments. GregJackP  Boomer!   15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * {ec}
 * Nice job, Mark. The latest attempt is much better and I have only a few minor concerns and a suggestion. First, the concerns:
 * "the citizen" seems overly specific. I'd prefer "Americans" or "the individual" or simply "the people".
 * The right is not unlimited, but I think it is the amendment which does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation.
 * Likewise, "It ..." should be the amendment, but currently picks up "the right" from the previous sentence.
 * We use the active voice, so "limits" rather than "does limit".
 * Local governments refers to multiple level of government below the state, so "both" state and local seems wrong.
 * I had the thought last night that we might group the related qualifiers. Something like:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The right is unconnected with service in a militia but it is not unlimited. The amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation and it limits state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.
 * Celestra (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Greg: I agree that it is a pre-existing right, but I don't think we need to include the nature of the right in the lead. Or. if others feel strongly about this, we can add "pre-existing" to a later mention of the right. The first sentence should be kept as neutral as possible to avoid the appearance of POV. Celestra (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. We already cover that somewhat in the blackstone paragraph, and we at some point in the past had the cruikshank quote that too. Ithink we should keep it out of the first sentence, but could be more explicit in saying pre-existing right near blackstone. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * we don't have to say that the right is not unlimited. We don't say this in the other amendments and the amendment doesn't say this....it says the opposite, "shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The right is unconnected with service in a militia. The amendment is incorporated via the fourteenth amendment and limits state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the right is unlimited or not is controversial between pro/anti groups, and something the public is interested and confused about. We have a recent, highly notable, SCOTUS ruling specifically and explicitly saying it is not unlimited, so I think saying so in the lede is entirely justifiable. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The amendment protects an individual right because SCOTUS held that in Heller. It is unconnected, yet not unlimited because SCOTUS interpreted it that way. It applies to the states because SCOTUS decided that in McDonald, basing that on the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the doctrine of incorporation. When we simply describe that which the Court has decided, in a balanced fashion, we are being neutral. When we select or discard bits based on other criteria, like our interpretation of the words in the amendment or what we thought the Court should decide, we are not. Celestra (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph needs to mention the 14th Amendment, because that's what applies the right against the states . Also, the lead should not say that the right is unconnected to service in militia, but rather should say the right is "not necessarily connected".  The Amendnent itself explicitly mentions militia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to ignore what we think the amendment says and stick to what SCOTUS has decided. The lead currently explains that SCOTUS decided that the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. We can briefly mention that it applies to the states to avoid causing the reader to think it only applies to the federal government, but there is no need to go into the details of how they decided that. The Court found that the right was unconnected to service in the Militia; "not necessarily connected" means something else entirely. What source can you provide which supports that? Celestra (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS decided that the Second Amendment alone does NOT apply to the states, whereas the 14th Amendment applies this right against the states. To say that the Second Amendment alone does so is wrong.  If we can't get this simple point settled, then it's probably no use discussing militia at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both. 14th can be mentioned (though I think it is better in a second sentence for readability). (although I think in the lede just saying incorporated is enough, with the details later, but I don't object to saying the 14th). "not necessarily connected to the militia" is factually wrong. The individual right is unconnected. Period. (Arguments that SCOTUS decided wrongly can be discussed in body, but not in the lede as part of our NPOV description of what effect the amendment actually has. )Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS has held that the Amendment protects a right unconnected to militia, and ALSO a right connected to militia: "our interpretation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms furthers the purpose of an effective militia" (DC v Heller). SCOTUS did not say that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms only if you're unconnected to any militia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The footnote is dicta, and not a holding - and the statement to which the footnote refers is clear "We will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose". The operative clause is the part that does something (protects the right), which is the entire purpose of the majority opinion. The right is unconnected to the militia, the footnote makes it clear that that right happens to further the "purpose of effective militia" but is not actually part of the right. You selectively quoted the footnote, which makes it obvious that that is not actually being used as the ruling "even if we considered the prologue" (ie, we did not consider the prologue). "no less than (indeed more than) the dissents interpretation" (even under the dissent, it would still work, but we didn't use that logic") Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A few other quotes from the opinion (explicitly in the holdings) are very clear
 * 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.
 * The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, do you think that a person has to be unconnected from a militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment? Doesn't it also protect people who are connected to a militia?  Shouldn't the Wikipedia article be clear about this?  We're writing for non- lawyers, after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It also covers all individuals. There is a pervasive historical argument that it was restricted to a militia, so "unconnected" is an important clarifier, but once we say "individual" and "Americans" that covers them all. We don't need to go specify every subgroup to which that umbrella covers. There is no additional right for the militia, the individual right is all that there is, which happens to cover the militia. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The last draft above says: "The right is unconnected with service in a militia." Some readers will misunderstand this to mean that the right does not protect militia members, which it obviously does.  You and I agree that it does.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * unconnected does not mean "only outside", it means unrelated in any way. If it did not protect militia members, it would in fact, be connected. However, I can accept SMP's recent article edit to "regardless of" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Your statement about incorporation above is incorrect. SCOTUS held in McDonald that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. Read the text in the fourth paragraph, read the source, read the decision. They reached that decision by way of the due process clause, but once the decision is made, we don't need to keep saying that over and over again. We don't talk about the fourteenth when we discuss other incorporated rights at the state and local level (e.g. a person doesn't take the fifth and the fourteenth in state court.) and we don't need to here. Regarding the militia, if your concern is that "unconnected" may mislead a person to think that there is no right for individuals who are connected to the militia, I'd be OK with substituting "independent of". My problem with "not necessarily connected" is that it implies a lack of resolution. "It might be, but not necessarily." "regardless of" also works for me. Celestra (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were limited to four words (like your example "I take the Fifth"), then I agree we would have to omit the 14th Amdt., but we are not so limited. Also, I did not use the word "incorporation" previously at this talk page, so I'm not sure what precise statement of mine you think was incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your comments about the fourteenth amendment, see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. We are limited in the number of words in the sense that we should be concise and not confuse the reader with extraneous details. In my opinion, this is an extraneous detail. Celestra (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made quite a few comments here about the 14th Amendment, and each comment had several parts, so I'm still unable to figure out what specifically you think was incorrect. Could you please clarify?  I searched the McDonald case and found that the Fourteenth Amendment was mentioned 175 times.  It is not a detail.  It is the only reason why the right described in the 2d Amendment applies against the states.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is the point about which I feel you are mistaken. The Second Amendment applies to the states because the Supreme Court decided it did in McDonald. It decided that based on the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, but now that it is decided, it is simply a fact which can be stated without extraneous details. The other problem I have with including the Fourteenth is that it sounds as though we are claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment causes it to apply to the states without the Court getting involved. It would be accurate to say that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local goverments based on the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine and it is accurate to simply say that the Second Amendment applies to state and local goverments and get into all the details later, but including the Fourteenth without mentioning the Supreme Court decision is inaccurate and misleading. Celestra (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO while you are technically correct, such general constitutional things do not need to be repeated in the first few sentences.  For example, the 2A protection applies because, under the US system, the constitution overrules laws, bu IMHO we don't need to repeat that general detail in the first few sentences. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. All we need to say is the fact that it applies to the states; we do not need to introduce the incorporation doctrine. Celestra (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't acquiesce the point on the incorporation clause. That is what the court case was about so it's more precise to include i and it's not a trivial detail - the mcdonald case centered on incorporation. The item that I have major heartache is with saying explicitly that the right is not unlimited. In recent rulings the court specifically did not take those matters up and they stated that the restrictions in place were "assumed" to be valid, because they weren't being challenged in the recent cases. Assumed valid is a world away from the Supreme Court explicitly stating the gun restrictions are constitutional. There can and likely will be cases. We can say that existing restrictions are "assumed valid" because recent case law has not been taken up. We can't summarily twist "Assumed valid" to say the right is "limited." That's a gross linquistic contortion......it's subtle, granted but this is a sensitive subject.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article currently says: "The amendment limits both state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, in view of the Fourteenth Amendment." I would have no objection to changing it to read: "The amendment limits both state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, in view of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S Supreme Court."  After all, SCOTUS said in McDonald: "the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right".  Alternatively, we could leave it as-is, which is perfectly accurate since the power of judicial review only authorizes the Court to strike down statutes that conflict with the Constitution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not twisting "presumed valid" into limited. Heller specifically said "not unlimited".
 * They listed a bunch of things presumed legal. Yes, those could be subject to future scrutiny, but at this time they are legal
 * Handgun bans and trigger lock requirements explicitly exceed the things which are legal
 * "the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license " - registration and licensing are specifically addressed by the ruling, and therefore fall into what is currently "reasonable regulation"
 * thus far the vast majority of gun regulation cases bubbling through state and lower courts have been upheld
 * Notably Heller's followup case where his semi-auto was deemed not acceptable
 * certainly we cannot read the WP:CRYSTAL ball, but, at this time they are legal, and we must neutrally describe the effect of the 2A on regulations.
 * Presumed limited is a far cry from limited. It just means the court case did not deal with that.  The fact that the court gave some examples does not mean that those conditions cannot be challenged.  Therefore, we can't state that the right is "limited."  We don't know where we'll be in 50 years at all.  There is a finality that we're trying to assign to something that is at best very slowly setting concrete.  Politics aside, we have to be discrete first.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They explicitly said "not unlimited" we should't say what the limits are for the reasons you said, and it may be that the limit is beyond every existing regulation, yet still not unlimited, but all of that is WP:CRYSTAL. At this time the protections of the 2a are limited, because many regulations have not been overturned. Beyond the ones in heller that are "presumed legal", they explicitly ordered DC to register and license Heller. Therefore at a minimum some form of licensing and registration is acceptable. For the same reasons we must reject TFD and other "Heller could be overturned" logic we must reject yours. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)If this were an article about the McDonald or Incorporation, I might agree with you. But this is an article about the Second Amendment and the lead should summarize the key information about the Amendment. There is plenty of space in the body to expand on why and how it applies. Also, you have not addressed my concern about misleading the reader into believing that the Amendment auto-magic-ally applies to the state because the Fourteenth Amendment exists. How would you adjust the wording to include the Fourteenth Amendment and eliminate that implication?
 * The Court, in Heller, held: 2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. Where did you think the phrase came from? Celestra (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Celestra, what is problematic about saying this: "The amendment limits both state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, in view of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the U.S Supreme Court." After all, SCOTUS said in McDonald: "the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can somewhat see Celestras point, this is purely about the 2nd amendment. However, the court rulings are laying to rest much and that is the subject of McDonald.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)@ Anythingyouwant: That is not entirely inaccurate, but is somewhat ambiguous about the timing of the interpretation. Did SCOTUS interpret the Fourteenth at some time in the past in a way which causes it to now make the the Second Amendment apply to the states? Better to say thing simply: "The Supreme Court decided the amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right through the doctrine of incorporation and the Fourteenth Amendment." But, as others have said, we don't need to go into such details. Celestra (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the reference to the Fourteenth Amendment down to the fourth paragraph of the Introduction. The first paragraph should summarize the current state of the Second Amendment. The other paragraphs explain why what the first paragraph says is the case. So the reference to the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't belong in the first paragraph. It belongs in the part of the Introduction describing the McDonald decision. SMP0328. (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article already says in the lead: "The amendment limits both state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right." The amendment of its own force does no such thing.  If people don't want to mention the Fourteenth Amendment in the lead, then why mention the states and localities in the lead?  Alternatively, it would be easy enough to write: "States and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right."  More concise, more accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that. Celestra (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone please refrain from editing the lead while we are still discussing it?
I think we are converging toward a consensus, but that can easily be derailed. Please leave the lead alone until we reach an agreement. I didn't ask Mark to revert his change because I think it is close, but perhaps both editors should back out their changes until we have a consensus. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the further edits that were made were indeed improvements and explained well in the above discussion. I think as of this edit the section seems broad enough in scope to have encyclopedic value, unambiguous and impartial.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Several of my concerns have not been addressed yet and I would prefer to reach an end point before implementing those changes, but if everyone is happy with the general direction, I guess we can go back to BRD for th details. Celestra (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, not responding to last Celestra item) Agree with Celestra in principle, but these new edits are excellent and rock solid. Still open to discussion, but IMHO a good version to discuss from. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree and reverted the last change. I don't think that the militia statement belongs in the lede, but if it does, we need to use the language which the Court used, which was "unconnected", not "regardless of" service to the militia. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to quote the Court. Clarity should be more important. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "regardless" provides more clarity. "Unconnected" needs more explanation to provide that same clarity, and can be misleading without that extra clarification. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a consensus favoring "regardless of" being clearer, so I have restored that wording. SMP0328. (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with SMP; the terms are synonymous. We have at least one data point which says that "unconnected to" can be thought to mean "only in the absence of", so it seems reasonable to switch to a more common synonym to improve the clarity. I would have used "independent of", but "regardless of" works just as well. Celestra (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct term
Thanks to everyone for an enthusiastic yet respectful discussion. Other than wanting a better word than "citizen", I am happy with the current lead. Does anyone else have any issues which they'd like to discuss? Celestra (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was considerable support above for "American people", and I agree. That Wikipedia article says non-citizens are included if they are lawful permanent residents.  Likewise,  SCOTUS has said:

"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 or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community
 * U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259, 265, 108 L Ed 2d 222, 232-233, 110 S Ct 1056, 1060-1061 (1990). Accordingly, the word "citizen" is too narrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the changes as of 03:45, 6 November 2013‎. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There may have to be a quick review of the support and opposes to the wording "American" verses "citizen" if the is still objection. I noticed that the 14th amendment mention was removed. I can live with it either way, but am on the side of the wording "citizen". However, if there were a need to change that, I would support simply "an individual's right to bear arms". I tend to see "The people" or "Americans" as excessive wording that could be perceived as US centric, possibly even glittering generalities. I like to opt for the most encyclopedic uses even if it may seem overly dry to some.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, do you think the words "the people" in the Second Amendment refer to anyone other than the American people? It's fine to be U.S.-centric if the topic is U.S.-centric.  The most widely-supported suggestion above was not for "American" or for "citizen" but rather for "American people".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that isn't necessarily true. I often have to remind myself this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Some form of American preference are expected, such as the American English variant being used, but the problem I see with "The people" is it is just adding verbiage from the amendment for no real reason and has a ring or connotation that resembles something that today is often used to give political point of view. I feel, and some agree, that something as impartial and neutral is expected in an encyclopedic article of this quality (not perfect but getting there).--Mark Miller (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no one is suggesting to add "The people". As I said before, the proposal is to add "The American people". That would include more than just citizens, but would exclude temporary visitors from other countries, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, consider this per MOS:INTRO: "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning").". Which I read as words to watch including - WP:IDIOM:"Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions."--Mark Miller (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also see this as relative emphasis - "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." Really, the term "American" is used very sparingly in the article as is the term "The People" which the article itself says: "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right." --Mark Miller (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Any of the terms is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm starting to see a rationale for objecting to "the American people", which is because it might give readers the misimpression that it could be a collective right instead of an individual right. But "citizen" also gives a misimpression that lawful permanent resident non-citizens have no right under the amendment.  How about "Americans" instead of "the American people"?  It's concise and accurate.  This amendment does not protect anyone who is not an American, per SCOTUS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They said it does not protect people who are not "part of the community", but I'm not sure that that is a perfect synonym for "Americans". I think due the ambiguity, complexity, and conflicting legal opinions/scholarly opinions, we are not going to find a simple phrase that is 100% accurate and understandable. I think we are going to just have to pick a term, and add a section to the body giving a more detailed explanation/various notable opinions (maybe with a note on the term in the lede saying it isn't a perfect summary). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I completely agree with Anythingyouwant about this: the term citizen does not include many of the people to whom this Amendment applies. The term "Americans" is much better, and vague enough to not seem that we are trying to be 100% accurate. Mark, were you commenting on the wording "...right of Americans..." above? Or were you picturing "...right of the Americans..." or "...the American people"? Celestra (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer the word individuals instead of the citizen or Americans or the American People, but I could live with any of the other terms suggested. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "individuals" seems too broad since it would include, for example, individuals who visit the US temporarily. Another possible problem (I'm not 100% sure) is that it might suggest that the right is only an individual right, so that it cannot be exercised as a member of a group.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As a sidebar "individual right" in 2A discussions means "a right not dependent on anything militia related". North8000 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would go with "each of the American people", as I see it as the clearest of the options discussed. Putting it in the singular tense clearly shows that we are discussing an individual right. However, I'd be happy with any of the other choices. "Americans" is very similar to my choice. "Citizen" gets the point across, although it doesn't necessarily include legal residents. "Individual" is acceptable, because it was used by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald ("individual right"). SMP0328. (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Each of the American people" sounds a but clunky.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that "American people" alone sounds like a collective right, so I put it in singular tense to make it clear that the RKBA is an individual right. If you have a way to do that, I'm open to it. SMP0328. (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I boldly installed "Americans". The later stuff about militia makes it even more clear that it's not just a collective right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Too many appear to to disagree with that use. So, I have attempted a compromise. "U.S. citizen".--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

US citizen is factually wrong, many non citizens are also (currently) protected. (permanent residents for example), and not all citizens are protected (GCA68) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://ia600607.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135876/gov.uscourts.mad.135876.31.0.pdf
 * http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=432
 * Mark, I think everyone has agreed with "individual Americans" except you. How come?  The problem with "citizen" is that it doesn't specify country of citizenship, plus SCOTUS has said that the right extends beyond US citizens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anythingouwant is correct, Mark; there existed a strong enough consensus to go ahead with the change. Please detail the problem you see in using "individual Americans". I suggest we move it down to a new section to make edit conflicts easier to handle. :) Celestra (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Current status
As of now, the lead sentence says: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans, including individual citizens, to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia."

This seems okay. Any objections?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems, as you put it, clunky. A member of a group is still an individual; it's just that the right always applies to the member and may or may not also apply to the group. I'd strongly support either "Americans" or "individuals" and oppose "citizens", but I don't feel strongly about the other one or two word choices. This simply shouldn't need a lengthy explanation.Celestra (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See next section below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Citizens versus non-citizens
FYI, in McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Thomas wrote: Because this case does not involve a claim brought by a noncitizen, I express no view on the difference, if any, between my conclusion and the plurality’s with respect to the extent to which the States may regulate firearm possession by noncitizens. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that if you review the total sum of the discussion since it begun and the specific issue "American" verses "citizen" there is clearly those that object and it is possible that a consensus has yet to formed. I believe the editors are acting in good faith as demonstrated with the contributions and collaboration in making a number of changes, taking into account a varied opinion of ideas. I believe the above is good reasoning to accept "citizen".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This author suggests that perhaps some noncitizens might be covered by the Privileges or Immunities Clause in view of the Equal Protection Clause.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the following:
 * "It is possible that some non-citizens could be covered by the Privileges or Immunities Clause in view of the Equal Protection Clause."
 * The statement I removed is not supported by either Justice Thomas's concurrence, nor by the cited reference, although I can see how one could misinterpret it. Currently there is only one Justice (Thomas) that views the P&I clause as viable.  The other eight justices are following The Slaughter-House Cases, which gutted P&I.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The cited source mentioned the EP Clause, no? See Duignan, Brian.  The U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Law, pp. 31-32 (Rosen Publishing Group, 2013).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it did. The problem is as follows. McDonald is a plurality opinion, which means it has no precedential value except where five or more justices agreed. In McDonald there were the following statements on P&I:
 * "For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter–House holding." McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3030-31 (2010)(Alito, J., joined by Roberts, CJ., Scalia, & Kennedy, JJ.).
 * "I agree with the plurality's refusal to accept petitioners' primary submission. Ante, at 3030 – 3031. McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3089 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (agreeing that P&I doesn't apply).
 * "First, the Court today properly declines to revisit our interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. See ante, at 3030 – 3031. McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3132 (Breyer, J., joined by Ginsberg & Sotomayor, JJ.) (agreeing that P&I doesn't apply).
 * So you have eight of the nine justices saying that P&I is a non-starter for the Second Amendment, and only one (Thomas) who says that it is the appropriate way to go. To then say in the article that non-citizens could be covered by P&I is just inaccurate. My disagreement with the statement had nothing to do with the reference to equal protection, but with the statement that "some non-citizens could be covered by the Privileges or Immunities Clause...." GregJackP   Boomer!   02:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to your comments, I have rephrased the equal protection stuff so that it more closely tracks the cited source: "After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether some non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause." Now, as to what could happen in the future, it seems quite possible that Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor could continue to argue that the 2d Amdt is not incorporated. Thus, coverage of non citizens could very well depend on whether Thomas combines the PI Clause with the EP Clause. But I am satisfied with simply tracking the cited source as quoted earlier in this talk page comment. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed "some" from that sentence, because the source says "non-citizens" not "some non-citizens". SMP0328. (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * okAnythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, McDonald is interesting in that the plurality all went with the 14th, but disagreed on which reasoning Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See the two court cases I linked above, Two different circuits are bubbling up rulings that it applies to resident aliens (Both filed by the Second Amendement Foundation, which has a very solid track record in front of SCOTUS so far) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think some discussion like the above is fine with respect to choosing words and how to summarize. But when we start getting into trying to create legal statements to go into article space out of legal discussion on the talk page, (e.g. applicability of 2A to non-citizens) I think we're getting too deep into wp:or/wp:synthesis. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Groups
Anything : Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am assuming your objection is that the "individual" wording would exclude protection of militias.
 * SCOTUS has made no ruling on the protection actually extending to the forming of a militia (although certainly Miller suggests it)
 * they have specifically ruled that the operative clause is what is actionable, and the preferatory clause is basically meaningless
 * That would actually probably covered by a combination of the 1st (Freedom of assembly) and the 2nd (while having guns)
 * Unless otherwise specified, every individual right is protected as a group right, so I'm not sure this needs clarification (See for example Citizens United).
 * Right, saying "individual Americans" seems to deny that group members have the right too, at least when our lead is read by a lay person. Lawyers might read it differently, but we're not writing for lawyers.  I am okay with "Americans" but could live with "Americans, including individual citizens".  Those last three words are not really necessary because we make clear that militia service is unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself to this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." This suggests that it may also be a collective right, since it says that the individual may be in a militia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I like indivdual Americans because it identifies them as being part of a group without having too much jargon.  Konveyor   Belt  22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that if you review the total sum of the discussion since it begun and the specific issue "American" verses "citizen" there is clearly those that object and it is possible that a consensus has yet to formed. I believe the editors are acting in good faith as demonstrated with the contributions and collaboration in making a number of changes, taking into account a varied opinion of ideas. I believe the above is good reasoning to accept "citizen".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, I copied your comment up here as the other conversation is about a different issue (I think).
 * I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. Since you first suggested "citizen", five editors have commented on it directly: SMP and Graham made neutral comments, Anything and I opposed it and you supported it. Since Anything proposed "Americans", nine editors have commented: Gaijin was initially opposed, then neutral, GregJackP and Graham were also neutral, Anything, SMP, KonveyorBelt and I have supported it and you and Justanon have opposed it. That seems sufficient to replace the less popular "citizen" with the more popular "Americans". Once that was done, Gaijin amended it to "individual Americans" and, I suppose, resolved any of his remaining concerns. Skipping forward, we have "individual Americans" now and can discuss pros and cons. Celestra (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting through that. There are a few others that you left out that supported the initial idea to begin with and my first draft to the lede, but suffice it to say that a good many editors were neutral and about split on support of oppose. I would say that that allows no consensus to be the determined outcome and would suggest a formal RFC is for this issue may be the best idea.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean RFC, nobody is asking for adminship over this :). the problem is that there is not  going to be an accurate and concise term that can be used. SCOTUS has not made a firm ruling, the circuits/states are going off in various directions. Even if the "truth" was 100% known and agreed on, the answer is likely more complicated than can be accurately described in one or two words. I think the lede is going to need to be ambiguous (perhaps just saying it protects a right, not not saying whose right), and then we can put in the complex answer in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; we are not writing the amendment, just summarizing it in a way that is informative to the reader. The choice of word, IMO, is around which word provides the reader with a reasonable impression of the group to which the Amendment applies. We will improve on that later in the article. It does not need to be legally accurate, and I favor a vague term like "Americans" or "individuals" over more exact sounding terms like "citizens". "Individual Americans" is not my first choice, but it is more than adequate and addresses some reasonable concerns others have. BTW - my counts include only the editors who directly commented one way or the other; it is impossible to know the opinions of the other editors about this detail one way or the other. We can have the RFC to formalize it if you want, but I think it will just confirm the existing trend. Celestra (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the typo. Yes, RFC (Request For Comment). I believe there has been some discussion on being as unambiguous as possible and some support for that. I make no legal argument, just an encyclopedic one. The term "American" is used in different ways and is an idiom for U.S. Citizen. If there is any ambiguity that is probably where it should be as that is where the legal question begins. As I said, yes there are concerns on both sides but I don't think it at correct to assume "American" has consensus at this point as the discussion really shows no consensus. Since this is the last point in the lead and I do feel there is enough question left in the text that a formal RFC is appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you can start an RFC if you like. Something like: "Would you prefer the term 'citizen' or 'individual American' (or something else) to describe the people to whom the Amendment applies in the first sentence of the lead." Your earlier bold change which included "citizen" had no discussion or agreement between proposal and implementation and the discussion preceding that proposal had others proposing leads which did not include "citizen". (The only earlier mentions of citizens, in fact, are your earlier proposals and explanations - and Gaijin and Anything discussion of Americans.) Everyone was reasonable and left your change there while the details were ironed out, but it would be incorrect to say that there was ever a consensus for "citizen". The change to "Americans" was discussed by six editors between proposal and implementation without strong objection. You (and perhaps Justanon, and perhaps other) have concerns, so let's discuss those concerns, with or without the RFC. Celestra (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but the way I read this, people are mostly just trying to figure out what is best rather than being adamant about anything. I think an RFC is probably overkill and unnecessary. My own opinion is that they are ALL OK. "American" is probably best because it is usefully vague in an area where there is no precise answer.  "Citizen" is probably the worst for two reasons:  #1 It implies a condition that we don know to be the case. #2 It can be a bit of a lightning rod term, often used to to make a point of excluding non-citizens. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion an RFC will only bring one or two others into the discussion and I don’t expect a User:Soloman arriving to show us the way. We have 10 active editors who should be able to resolve this on 2A talk page. I have no strong objection to any of the terms, but now believe “individual Americans” is probably the best. I don’t understand why Mark objects to that term. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not unlimited
Its very clearly in the "Held:" Section of the syllabus, as a major bullet point where point 1 is individual right, point 2 is not unlimited, and point 3 is the specific handgun ban being declared unconstitutional. The holdings end with the statement "Affirmed". Beyond that, based on Heller, there are numerous secondary sources. 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it keeps getting deleted then it may be worth putting a footnote at the end of that sentence citing secondary sources .Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that part of Heller was dictum, it is necessary to clarify what Heller held. That's why the Court put in the Opinion of the Court. Also, the Courts of Appeals have extensively relied on that part of the Heller opinion. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree - not dicta but part of the ruling. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. It provides important clarification and is a summary. Miguel does good work. I hope they come to talk before removing again. I left them a note. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. Not dicta. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Court still needed to explain why Dick Heller still needed to get a license, so the part of the Opinion of the Court explaining that the RKBA is limited can not be dicta. SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavery
Carl Bogus (University of California at Davis Law Review31 (1998): 309; this is the third most popular Google response to queries about the history of the second amendment) argues that an important factor in the amendment's adoption was the need by southern states for militias to control the slave population. While this work is cited in the article, it's not given a prominent position, and appears to be completely absent from the sections on history and late twentieth century commentary. More generally, it's important to mention that most of the Founding Fathers involved in the debate were slave-holders and obviously concerned about the possibility of slave rebellions. Paulhummerman (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bogus is not the mainstream view, his position in a google search can be more of a SEO issue rather than his academic acceptance. It also presents an approach that the Second Amendment only protected a collective right for states to form militias (see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)), a view explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court.  That is the reason that his view is not featured prominently.    GregJackP   Boomer!   15:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As the editor who added the Carl Bogus reference, I concur with Greg. I did this originally as a reference that 2A had experienced little attention from SCOTUS (or the courts in general).


 * I don't know if the two are related, but its Google search position was far lower in its rank prior to me adding it to this article. I'm not claiming respnsibility for the SEO increase, but the 2A article does get read quite often and I'm sure the references are reviewed as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue swings both ways. Certainly militias were used to repress slave rebellions (+gun rights), but after emancipation gun control laws were a significant part of Jim Crow (+gun control). Slave owners and racists used every tool and method available to them to enslave, the suppress the Black population. This is not however an issue for the second amendment - it could go into more general articles about gun control, or gun violence, or militias/posse, or slavery, racism, jim crow, etc. In the context of the 2A, this is a very small minority view. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation
In no other amendment do we find a phrase like this in the lede. Should we add it to the other amendments? "The right is not unlimited and does not protect all forms of speech."

ie, to use the common vernacular - yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is illegal. Why do we single out this amendment and this amendment only? We should be explicit unless we're just being biased. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the article because it's mentioned in Heller. It's a necessary clarification, because some claim that all firearms regulations are an infringement of the RKBA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with SMP, In the same ruling that lets us say "Individual" or whatever, it says "not unlimited". The fire in a theater thing is not actually analogous, there is no prior restraint of yelling fire in a theater (you will just get in trouble later), wheras there are multitudes of prior restraints involved in firearms (age, felons, licensing, local registrations etc). It would be analagous if youhad to get a license to run a website or print a newspaper (free speech zones and protest permits are closer to the mark). 19:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree for the above reasons and also I think that it is helpful to clarify / refine the first sentence which due to brevity needs to be imprecise. But Justanonymous you make a good point.   North8000 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Just and North. There are references (or allusions at least) in other Amendment articles about state and local governments being prohibited from infringing on Amendment protection, but nothing like the wording "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation." especially in the lead. Inclusion of this phrase is starting to smell of POV to me. I vote that this phrase be removed from the lead. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually saying that I was in favor of leaving it in. But the "take it out" folks are also making good points.  North8000 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Explicit wording like that is not in the other articles, because SCOTUS has not used explicit wording like that in the rulings regarding the other amendments. However, as a practical matter, the unlimited vs limited debate rages on, with gun control proponents basically saying everything not explicitly already overruled by Heller is legal, and with gun rights side saying "its only a matter of time before the dominoes fall". Which is correct (or more correct) remains to be seen, but the fact that SCOTUS explicitly said the right is not unlimited, and specifically left in place licensing and registration regulations that affected Heller, clearly there are some limitations. Personally I lean towards/hope for the "dominoes" argument, but it is excessively obvious that a neutral description of the current state of the amendment's protections are indeed "not unlimited". (NFA, still around, GCA, still around, tons of state and local laws including AWBs etc) When those dominoes start falling, hopefully SCOTUS gives better guidance as to what limitations do or do not actually exist. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According the counsel for Congress, the First Amendment "provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others." So Second Amendment rights are no different in this regard than other protected rights.  Saying it is mentioned in Heller is not helpful, the same applies to other rights.  Furthermore, the Court's comment that the right was limited had no bearing on the outcome of the case and therefore does not bind the courts.  Only if the Supreme Court had decided to uphold the D.C. as a legitimate restriction would it have set a precedent.
 * All this shows that instead of interpreting primary sources ourselves, we should rely on secondary sources as required by policy.
 * TFD (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But it did uphold several parts of DC law as a legitimate restriction, particularly the licensing and registration requirements (merely they must license and register him, but not that he can have the gun without licensing and registration). Per WP:MOSLAW the primary actually succeeds the secondary on the part of laws, but this item is of course covered my numerous secondary sources. (Speculating as to what limitations would or would not be allowed of course would violate WP:OR     Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Wikipedia has a whole article titled United States free speech exceptions. More generally, SCOTUS has said:

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. I'm not sure if Wikipedia's articles about the other amendments get this point across adequately, but what's in the lead of this article seems fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear editors, I think most of you know that I respect your viewpoints. It still appears that we are missing something.  To Gaijin42, the court did not uphold gun restrictions.....they didn't take up that aspect of those laws. This is very different from "upholding."  The court is just being discrete about the question it was being asked.  THe court did not stray.  It is eminently clear that the amendments are constraints on government not on the people.  It is also eminently clear that people are only free up until the point where their rights start to infringe on the rights of others....ie a credible verbal threat by one person against another person can be seen as the crime of "assault" vs as "free speech," even though both are delivered by the nature of human speech.   Still, we don't mention this constraint in the lede of the first amendment.  It would be silly to mention that because it's plainly visible for sentient beings to see because that's a natural contour of liberty vs a constraint of the freedom of speech.  As such, this is not a "limit" on the right to free speech but there is a contour on the raw nature of liberty.  So, we're missing a critical point here.  By calling out this natural contour on this amendment, we water down the amendment and its protections especially since we appear to be misinterpreting what the supreme court did.....they just answered the question presented to them vs being an activist court and striking down things that they were not asked about.  It's fundamentally repugnant to call what they did "upholding"  they most certainly did not "uphold"  they just did not take those matters up and until someone does and until they or other courts take those matters up, the current laws stand on the books.  Still they did not uphold, the just presumed that those laws are valid (until such a time as somebody might challenge them credibly and if nobody ever does then that's fine too).  Still, we should either go and put disclaimers on all rights (there is plenty of case and criminal law for us to do that) or we can just acknowledge that liberty has contours and clean up this egregious mistake on the lede of this amendment.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. I dunno what I think now.  Maybe it's because the first sentence sounds far-reaching (a necessity due to it's brevity)) and being in a contentious area we're trying to be sensitive or oversensitive to that. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The lower courts have often relied upon that dictum of SCOTUS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a far reaching right and the first sentence is far reaching just like the first amendment is far reaching. These are fundamental rights.  Now, nobody has a right to transgress against another so we can't call those limits on the rights.  A credible verbal assault is a crime and not a limit on free speech or a limit on the first.  Similarly pointing guns at people is many times considered a crime (assault with a deadly weapon) and that crime certainly can't be labeled as a limit on the second amendment.  We don't have to say that the second amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms  "but that it doesn't allow people to point guns at one another indiscriminately."  That last part in quotations is a GIVEN and is not a limit on the right per se.  Articulating it makes us sound petty and political.  The lower courts do take their cues from higher courts and we're seeing that already with the "shall issue" carry laws in Illinois.  And the contours of liberty will likely continue to be argued for decades or thousands of years.....Aristotle thought he had it figured out.  We here should be consistent in our treatment of fundamental rights here and not inject the biases that are present in the political discourse.  At the moment, we're unnecessarily watering down a fundamental right with our choice of words.  Nobody has a right to commit crimes and crimes are not limits on our rights.  And, we're not going to define nor map out the contours of liberty in our ledes.  Just say what it says and let the courts iron out the fine details. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying crimes are the contours. Do you think that things like AWB, NFA, FOID, licensing (of ownership, or CCL vs Constitutional carry), prohibited persons,  etc are things that if constitutional would be the contours or  "limitations on the right"? The Courts ARE ironing out the fine details, and while certainly there are many changes that may happen in the future, we do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Right now, at this exact moment, there ARE limitations on the right, that are regularly enforced at all levels of government. I think you and I probably more agree than not on what those limitations SHOULD be, and what we HOPE happens in the future, but it is undeniable that they actually exist at this moment in time. SCOTUS has explicitly commented on this, and that commentary has been regarded as highly notable being discussed dozens, hundreds, and possibly even thousands of times in reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my point is that we don't articulate in the lede that the first amendment is limited just because there are laws on the books that say you can't just go and put up your own 100,000 watt radio tower and blast away, laws that say that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, that you can't verbally assault someone nor libel them nor infringe on copyright law. We don't denote these contours in the first amendment lede.  My question is, why do we have to articulate these things on the second's lede?  It is a fundamental right.  It's also a given that there are laws that bump up against the second just like there are laws that bump up against the first.  That's largely immaterial.  Why do we have to explicitly call that out on the second but not the first?  Seems like POV pushing.  If we were consistent on the other amendments, I could understand the logic but we're not.  We explicitly single out this amendment.  That's my point. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

but we do. In the case of the second, we don't explicitly know which regulations are still acceptable, so we must be vague, but we absolutely do cover the limits of the protection and rights in the other amendment's articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute
 * these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.
 * but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.
 * (not in lede) Currently, federal law permits the trial of misdemeanors without indictments
 * (not in lede) or does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[21] including habeas,[22] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[23] on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated." There is also an exception for judicial bribery in a bench trial
 * The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims
 * NO WE DON'T. Not on the second sentence of the lede in a fundamental definitive fashion without so much as an RS backing it up.  All your examples are caveated heavily in the body with all kinds of context added.  I'm removing it.  If you want to re-add it, please get a bunch of RS and start backing it up.  It wasn't there two months ago and now it's there and it's not even backed by RS. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your change per WP:BRD. Please find consensus here&mdash;I can tell you that the lead is quite a hot topic, consuming the majority of the past archive or two of this talk page. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the statement doesn't not have RS, it's contentious, it's inconsistent with other amendment descriptions. It needs to go per WP:RS.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I listed multiple RS just a few comments ago, and many more are easily available. It is more important in this article. The text of the amendment reads "shall not be infringed". Many people consider any limitation or regulation infringement. If there is actually allowed limitation or restriction that "does not infringe" that is an extremely relevant point about the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * it's not policy to list sources in talk and not use citations on the actual article. As to whether it's more important in this amendment is highly subjective. I wonder what they meant by "shall not be infringed," if they didn't mean, "shall not be infringed?" Are there other common meanings to these words? but regardless we're arbitrarily assigning weight where we should not.  Nothing special about this right when compared to others we retain.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. You can certainly argue that SCOTUS is wrong, but the same people makinn that argument are arguing for the collective militia right since those words are straight in the amendment too. you can argue whatever the hell you want as to what you think the amendment means (and I probably agree with you) but as a legal and practical matter, SCOTUS decides what it means. They have explicitly said it is not unlimited. That has been discussed in a plethora of reliable sources. We very recently covered this ground in the "individual" discussion, and if heller isn't good enough for "not unlimited" it isn't good enough for "individual right unconnected to service in a militia" either, and we should gut the rest of this article except for the exact text and leave the reader to figure it out. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to determine whether or not the decision was correct, merely to report "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Furthermore, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources."  TFD (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42, would you mind if I removed all but one of those citations, say leaving the Constitiutional Law text? Having citations in the lead is sometimes needed, but having a string of them detracts and distracts, IMO. Celestra (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably best to move most of them to the body of the article, instead of removing them entirely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Celestra That is fine with me, as long as others think it is well enough cited to support the sentence. We could of course hew closer to the source and say "The supreme court has said that..." or something, but that is true for almost every statement in the lede and seems redundant (and per the arguments by others above, is not consistent with how we describe the other amendments) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, I think you and I ideologically see eye to eye on most of this. I also agree that there are standing laws that govern guns.  I'm not here to say that SCOTUS is right or wrong or whether the current lines are where I'd like them to be.  I have a personal view but it's largely irrelevant.  I just worry we're treating the amendment unfairly in comparison with the others. I'm for leaving the plain text without coloration.  Discuss in discussion sections and let the reader decide.  I'm certain the body of law will continue to evolve. Don't mean to be difficult, I respect you all greatly for the hard work you all do here and for your levelheadedness on a difficult topic.  -Justanonymous (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the formatted ones I replaced.

Celestra (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Does not prohibit regulation
The Wikipedia article says: "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation of firearms and similar devices." I support inserting (or restoring) the word all so it reads: "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar device" (my emphasis).

As it stands now, the sentence is somewhat misleading. After all, the amendment does prohibit regulation to a certain degree, i.e. some regulations are unconstitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it is technically correct either way. But I think that "all" adds clarity / info in an area where such is needed, and that without the "all" somebody could easily misunderstand it. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "does not prohibit regulation" is factually incorrect, as we know for a fact it does prohibit the regulations at issue in Heller and McDonald. It MAY "prohibit all regulation" but that is an issue for the WP:CRYSTAL ball to deal with when future cases hit SCOTUS. At this moment it does prohibit some, but not all regulations of firearms - but where the line between some and all is is unknown. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I support having the word "all" in that sentence. Especially in this article, clarity should be a priority. At this point, there appears to be a consensus for "all". SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 's right. We should change it to read "The right is not unlimited and may allow some regulation of firearms."   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you put in "some" then people will complain about wp:weasel.Weasel words.svgingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a place where I think weasel words are perfectly appropriate. If you go theoretical, nobody knows which will ultimately be prohibited and which (if any) will be acceptable. If you go technical, at this exact moment any regulations which have not been overturned are not yet prohibited - but defining which are and which aren't would be very cumbersome, so "some" is appropriate. (Perhaps we should put a footnote onto "Some" to explain it. (Does not prohibit all regulation avoids some of this weasel issue, but I think the difference between does not prohibit all, and allows some, is negligible. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But don't we know for sure that it does not prohibit all regulation? If it did prohibit all regulation, then the courts would not be upholding regulations right and left.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those upheld regulations (and overturned regulations) are being appealed up through the court system. Until SCOTUS rules we don't know for sure. (Although I agree it is very unlikely that it would be found to prohibit all regulation, if based on nothing more than the "not unlimited" from Heller). At the current time though certainly there are regulations in force so "not all" is accurate. Theoretically the 2A could rule all existing regulations prohibited, yet still not prohibit all regulation (as there could be some allowable regulation which just does not exist yet). per WP:CRYSTAL I think the lede should be describing the current state, which "some regulation" is allowed, (or does not prohibit all), but going into more detail in describing which is prohibited and which isn't would probably be WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I support:"The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices" with the addition of the word "all" as added by Anythingyouwant.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we perhaps say that the states have interpreted the amendment differently with respect to the amount of regulation that they've allowed in their respective state. New York, Illinois and California seem to have a vastly different view of the second amendment protections than say Arizona or Alaska. It's not for us to say that the amendment is limited because the debate is ongoing and it's in a state of flux almost always. It's hard to nail down and for us to express a political and philosophical concept with certainty. Instead of saying that the right is not unlimited, perhaps we write, "The amendment has been interpreted differently by the States with respect to the types of regulations that the amendment allows" or, "The scope of legally imposed and allowed regulation on the amendment varies by state." Something like that but maybe more polished but that removes the contentious language. As it stands it's very contentious. Just thinking out loud.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No State has interpreted the RKBA as unlimited. Also, how much a State regulates firearms is not necessarily a sign of the extent that State believes it could regulate firearms. The Introduction should summarize the article. Saying "not unlimited" does that. Perhaps we could include in the body of the article a reference to the extent of regulation by State. SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument I make is different and to an extent rhetorical. The statement that the right is not unlimited is nonsensical here. We don't make a similar statement in the summary of the first amendment but we do so here.....why?  Because 4 editors want it here and because a few think it's contentious and they want to explicitly put unnecessary boundaries. We arbitrarily think it's not necessary in the first amendment or third? (I'm not going to go vandalize those pages to make a point but we don't seem to be having those debates over there)  Might as well say that the third amendment is anachronistic in the summary, that it's outdated and irrelevant.....but we don't - we give it more respect than that in the summary and we understand that there was and perhaps one day will be a very real purpose for this amendment.  This right like all others is bound by language, meaning, intent, and interpretation and to a greater extent it's bound by liberty itself. Here we seek to explicitly state that this right is not unlimited and only here.....a political statement, and not one of summarization.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Justanonymous, I'm somewhere near-neutral on this, but I think that it is permissible and a good idea to have something like that in there. I thought a lot about your argument that the other amendment articles don't include such a statement. But in reviewing them, I think that there is an important difference.   Generally the other amendments are worded to define specific limitations / restrictions on / against government power.  Even the "rights of the prosecuted" ones are basically conditions/restrictions placed on prosecution. And so their wikipedia articles have a more straightforward way to open and summarize, without saying establishing a right.  Saying a right has been established is a vague statement,  and some of the possibilities that fall within that ambiguous statement are very far reaching. (E.G. unlimited,  that any restriction in that area is forbidden).  And in fact actual practice as well as comments by Scotus in Heller have I think overwhelmingly confirmed that it is not unlimited, where any  and all restrictions restriction are prohibited.   And so I think that for two reasons that the sentence is OK (not necessarily mandated, but OK) in the face of your arguments:
 * We are opening with our own similarly vague summary, and such could justify such an added sentence.  I.E. it is there temper a wikipedia-editor-written sentence/summary.
 * Practice and Scotus have indicated that it it does not grant an unlimited right, i.e. it does prohibit any and all restrictions regarding bearing arms. And so the sentence is a summation of that.
 * I'm not talking about any particular wording for that sentence, or even saying that it must be in there. I am just arguing that
 * It is OK to be in there, even in the face of your arguments.
 * It would be a good idea to have something like that in there. And I'm not weighing in on any particular wording.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you North8000 and I know we're all good editors just trying to make this thing better. To me, the second amendment is no different from most of the others - it's a specific restriction on the power of the federal state and by incorporation of the fourteenth amendment, it's also a limitation on the individual states themselves.  The first amendment restricts the federal government from interfering with the inalienable individual right "freedom of speech."  Similarly, the second amendment restricts the federal government from interfering with the inalienable individual right to "keep and bear arms."  The only thing of concern that I read was when you wrote, "Saying a right has been established is a vague statement, and some of the possibilities that fall within that ambiguous statement are very far reaching."  The only reason I take exception is because the constitution doesn't establish any rights -- rights are inalienable and beyond the scope of government to interfere with - that is the beating heart of the Republic.....That's why the court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), wrt to guns ruled 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"  The court was acknowledging that these things are beyond the paper in a demonstration of that classically liberal and somewhat radical spirit (which I cherish).  If we look at many of the states constitutions the only thing that most of them say is that the "manner in which arms are born" might be regulated. Except Illinois which seems to say that the right is subject to the police power (I won't even start with that).  But for the reasonable state constitutions --- it's not ok for a thirteen year old to walk down a mall with two drawn Glock 21s, one in each hand, with extra-large magazines.  So, it's not the right that is limited, it's the manner in which we bear arms that we have to consider because we deal in a society which implies that there are many people and we can't just go around scaring the beegeebers of our fellow citizens.  But there is no "limit" on the right, there is only a limit on liberty....that limit is naturally reached when you bump against and transgress on the rights of another person.  In any case, respect you all tremendously for your efforts -- we've been at this for  a while.  I Don't expect it to get resolved here today or this month but it's a point of subtlety that I will endeavor to convince you all with RS sources as I find them. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on ALL of the principles which you just described. My point above lies more in the mechanics of wording.
 * Regarding to "operative mechanics" of the constitution, as a practical matter the only rights that don't get trampled on are those as protected by the constitution. Wherever the constitution doesn't explicitly protect rights (e.g. privacy, the right to travel using the main methods) we tend to end up de facto/operatively not having them.   And so I think that it is relevant to describe protection of rights by the constitution.
 * Regarding WORDING, if you look at the other amendments, they really don't flat-out state that we have a general right which the government shall not infringe upon.  Instead, they define very specific things that the government can't do in a way that is more specific than just infringing on a right.    I'm not saying that this is a fundamental difference, it is a difference in the mechanics of wording, which does affect how we write about them.  The other amendments do not force us to use the vague/ambiguous concept of a "right" to describe them, we can cover them by simply describing the specific things ("specific" being specific in the wording of the amendment) that the governmetnis prohibited from doing.   And so, while agreeing with you on ALL of the principles which you just described, IMHO my above arguments do not conflict with them, they arise from the mundane mechanics of wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Isn't that scary though.  Some of the founding fathers were against a bill of rights at all because they were worried that if you outline a bill of rights then the government would assume that those were the only rights the people held.  These guys envisioned a truly classically liberal order.  So Madison came up with the ninth and tenth amendments as a kind of stopgap.  Which interestingly have never been litigated against - not the ninth at least.  Who would've foreseen the type of word mechanic-ing that we're seeing today.  At least we still have the 10 amendments but they're in a vat of acid from what I can tell. Thx much for the great work here.  We'll keep making reasonable edits.  Don't want to turn this into a forum but some of these concepts are very complex so appreciate and value the leniency by the other editors.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Prohibition, qualifiers or not? Suggestion Reply
In this sentence in the lead, "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices.", it seem fairly explicit to me that "all regulation" is not prohibited with the "all" in place. What is the need for the redundancy? I am not trying to debate or force any particular issue regarding 2A, I'm simply in favor of grammar that is as simple and straightforward as we can make it. The addition of "all" clarifies nothing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think we need an "all" or "some" in there - "does not prohibit regulation" implies that any given regulation is valid, which is factually incorrect (See Heller and McDonald's specific regulations) . However, we could simplify things by instead of trying to define what the 2A DOES NOT do, define what it DOES do : "prohibits some regulations" - but per previous discussions, the "some" is WP:WEASEL and likely to annoy people who think the protection is (or should be) all, or close to all. My guess is that shortly (TM) we will have a SCOTUS ruling that gives some guidance on the standard for regulations (strict scrutiny, rational basis,  etc) that will significantly clarify this subject, and let us write something much more clear Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but is my problem with the absolutism of using the word "all" appreciable? Personally, I consider myself nearly in the middle of the debate of control v. rights, but that aside its wording like this that has lead to fierce POV debates over and over again in this article and many others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I think by adding the word all it actually makes it LESS absolute. If we say "does not prohibit regulation" that will annoy the gun people. If we way "prohibits regulation" that will annoy the control people. Both are arguably factually incorrect without a all/some qualifier, yet technically correct if you allow for the implied all/some as you suggested. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All/some have problems in that they are vague and leave a lot of room for what is/isn't allowed, but I think that is a neccesary evil due to the current state of the SCOTUS rulings - we don't actually know more about how that line is actually defined to be able to describe it accurately. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how about... "The right is not unlimited with regulation of specific firearms and similar devices allowed, but a clear and concise explanation of those limits has yet to be expressed by the courts." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Im definitely good with something in that general area, but I think the wording could be tweaked. Before we burn lots of time tweaking though, lets see if others weigh in on the general direction. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good suggestion below, by the way... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

knives, other arms
Although certainly the vast majority of WP:WEIGHT on this topic from a legal and media perspective is certainly on guns, I think we should add a small section (and perhaps a tweak to the lede) to cover non-firearm arms (in particular knives, but also probably clubs, or other melee weapons) that may (or may not) be covered by the 2A. the topic is starting to bubble through the legal academic community, and also getting some media coverage, as well as some state/circuit rulings.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238223
 * http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf (convenience link)
 * Useful as its own source, but also has lots of footnotes pointing to other sources (primary and secondary)
 * http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/knife-rights-second-amendment
 * (Wisconsin court case) http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Schultz1.pdf (also applies to our discussion above, with the court choosing to apply strict scrutiny, as Heller/McDonald were vague)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=h4aWFrgW74YC&pg=PA96&dq=second+amendment+knives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ysucUoL5GYzwrAH41YGoDA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=second%20amendment%20knives&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=RrVtBYkoHYwC&pg=PA574&dq=second+amendment+knives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ysucUoL5GYzwrAH41YGoDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=second%20amendment%20knives&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=z3LB3e69XBIC&pg=PA109&dq=second+amendment+knives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W8ycUuexAoHqrgG1x4GIDw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=second%20amendment%20knives&f=false
 * great idea, agree completely! That's very plainly missing.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution be spilt into meaning of "keep and bear" and  meaning of "arms". Also could mention that crew served weapons are not protected (according to most). J8079s (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

More commentary
I am going to add a quote from I would like to add the whole section but its long and there are two more that need to be in. The Rights of an American Citizen: With a Commentary on State Rights, and on the Constitution and Policy of the United States and Handbook of American Constitutional Law 1st ed 1895 Cooley and Oliver are cited by the court in Heller. Black is too, I think. J8079s (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends what the quote is, and whether the subject is already covered in the Wikipedia article. Unless I missed something, the Wikipedia article neglects to point out that the Amendment does not refer to "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms".  Several scholars emphasize this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with such extensive quoting within the main text of the Wikipedia article. The quotes should be summarized in our own words (you can put the full text in the footnotes if you want).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per policy (WP:V), "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing "8.3 Miller v. Texas" from the wiki page "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"
Currently, section 8.3 describes Miller v. Texas as follows: "In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law:[173] 'As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.'"

However, I believe this summary is inaccurate. This is taken from Lexus Nexus's summary of the Miller v. Texas case (I'm not suggesting replacing the current text with the following):

"Overview: In his motion for rehearing to the criminal appeals court, defendant alleged that that the Texas statute prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons on the person violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He further asserted that the same statute, which provided that any person carrying arms in violation of the previous section could be arrested without warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The court dismissed defendant's writ of error, holding that because defendant had not raised the constitutional questions in trial court or in the criminal appeals court on direct appeal, he had not preserved the issues for review on his writ of error. Because the rights were not claimed in the criminal appeals court, the judgment of that court, as the highest court in the State, was conclusive. By raising the constitutional questions for the first time in his motion for rehearing, defendant had waived his right to review on those issues. The court held that there was no federal question properly presented by the record in the case and that the writ of error had to be dismissed upon that ground." (https://advance.lexis.com/GoToContentView?requestid=c9031173-2808-8177-bed9-19c94b9ad7b7&crid=93abee8d-439b-490f-89fc-5747e35a403e)

Accordingly, although Miller (in Miller v. Texas) raised a defense of the second amendment, the case was thrown out on grounds that Miller had never raised his constitutional questions prior to his appeal. Thus, I suggest that section 8.3 be thrown out completely as irrelevant to the wiki page "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Gwa1684 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks in the lead
Ideally, the lead should have four paragraphs. Also, one-sentence paragraphs are usually inappropriate. Moreover, the first paragraph of the lead should ordinarily be concise and not huge. Therefore, I support merging the last paragraph into the previous paragraph (note that the last paragraph specifically references the cases in the previous paragraph which is another reason to merge).

See One-sentence_paragraphs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. IMHO this suggestion doesn’t need lengthily discussion – just make the change. Cheers, Grahamboat (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did make the change but was reverted. Will try again if no one else does it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't. The four paragraph limit is not a solid rule or policy and this is not even close to GA or FA to require such limits.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned the the lead paragraph does not open with the actual words of the second amendment, but rather a summary of the 'heller' decision. So I looked at the wiki article on the first and fourth amendment and found each leads with the test of the amendment. I would suggest a rewrite of the opening 4 paragraph's in a way that opens with the second amendment actual text and follows with a benign statement of the current legal activity. Follow with heller summary as the current supreme court opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsean2 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All Constitutional amendment articles have a Text section, like this article. An amendment's text in never in the Introduction. The legal meaning of an amendment, as with any part of the Constitution, is determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The first paragraph follows how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment. The other paragraphs described the various Second Amendment decisions, including Heller, that make up the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Militia
What do people think about adding a few words to the lead sentence? "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia, although one purpose of the Amendment is to facilitate militia service." This seems fairly uncontroversial, and it reflects the text of the Amendment, instead of implying that the Amendment's preamble is totally irrelevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There is not a single court decision that says anything of the sort.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The US Supreme Court made this point again and again in DC v. Heller: "It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia....[T]he Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right....Cooley understood the right not as connected to militia service, but as securing the militia by ensuring a populace familiar with arms....[T]he Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute)....[O]ur interpretation of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' furthers the purpose of an effective militia...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary to summarize that. The founding fathers feared standing armies and they saw a well armed citizen militia comprised of all able citizens as the best defense against government tyranny and external attacks. At the time a good chunk of the population kept firearms for gathering food and to defend against wild animals and other things that go bump in the night so there was a silently acknowledged broader right to life which guns enabled through the collection of food and the right to self defense which guns also enabled. Justanonymous (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with your addition is that it can easily be misunderstood to imply that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. The Introduction should be a clear summary of the article. Referring to the Second Amendment as be in part intended "to facilitate militia service" is not clear, because it does not clearly explain the extent the role of militias play in the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the lead sentence presently suggests that militias are irrelevant to the Amendment. Rephrase my suggestion maybe?  Militias do not affect the scope of the right, but protecting militias was one purpose of the Amendment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the statements in Heller are anywhere close to the "facilitate militia service" statement proposed.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not wedded to the word "facilitate", but I must say that it captures what SCOTUS said (secures, prevents elimination of, preserves, and furthers the purpose of militias).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I just don't think it merits yet another sentence that will likely further create contention while not adding anything that's not already there.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition is unnecessary and presents a collective right POV.  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In place of the words "regardless of service in a militia", I suggest to insert "including but not limited to people who may serve in a militia".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty strongly opposed to that. Amongst other things, it removes the core statement solidly founded and sourced (that the right is "unrelated" to...and thus not dependent on). The militia is given as A reason, not the operative clause. Sorry/Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the lead mention that reason somewhere? The Amendment mentions it, but our lead does not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, now that you are proposing to say that such is A reason not the operative clause (and of course, don't call it THE reason) Of course, I'm just one person. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)
 * Okay, how about this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia, although one of the reasons for the Amendment was to help preserve an effective citizen militia"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your latest proposed wording is as vague as your original proposal. A reference to militias being a/the reason for the Second Amendment can easily be misinterpreted as meaning that militia service is a requirement for the RKBA. The Introduction already references the role militias play in the Second Amendment (see the Intro's description of Miller and Heller). SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Second Amendment's "preamble" expresses a concern for preserving militias, so I don't see how we can neutrally keep that out of the lead. That doesn't mean that this was the sole concern, but it was one of the concerns.  The Heller material in the lead does not say anything about militias.  The only hint in the lead is this sentence: "In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'."  As regards knives, and many other weapons, that statement from Miller is very much disputed (and the lead does not say whether it is still good law).  What is not disputed is that one of the purposes of the Amendment was to help preserve effective citizen militias, and keeping that out of the lead seems very questionable to me, especially since it's in the Amendment itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Until SCOTUS says that the preamble expresses a concern for preserving effective militias, we don't add it. There is a distinct difference between preventing elimination of a militia and preserving an effective militia.  This seems to be trying to go back to a collective rights model, and the court was extremely clear that the right was an individual right.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem inserting this if it would make more editors happy: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia, although one of the reasons for the Amendment was to prevent elimination of militias." I support NPOV in Wikipedia articles.  The leftists who have an iron grip on many Wikipedia articles (e.g. abortion-related ones) do not comply with NPOV, but I don't see that that's a good reason to give up on the notion.
 * Incidentally, I doubt that Justice Scalia was trying to go back to a collective rights model when he wrote (for the Court): "[O]ur interpretation of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' furthers the purpose of an effective militia...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, yeah, I gotta real kick out of Scalia's opinion. It's not written like a textualist or originalist opinion.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So how about, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution currently protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in a militia." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that addresses the matter raised in this talk page section. I also don't think the word "currently" works, which is why it's not in comparable articles (e.g. "The Constitution of the United States is [currently] the supreme law of the United States of America".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, it makes more sense, is factually accurate, and not misleading stated as... "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in a militia."
 * I have removed the reference to the militia being the reason for the Second Amendment. There is a consensus against that material being in the Introduction. That material should not be restored to the Introduction, unless there is a consensus in favor of such restoration. SMP0328. (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you know SMP0328, I almost always agree with you, but here is an exception. The added material did not say that militias are "the reason" for the Amendment (as you assert), but rather says that militias are "one of the reasons".  No one denies that they were one of the reasons, and that is what the preamble says.  I explicitly used the language mentioned by GregJack, and North8000 seemed okay with it.  I also answered your objection above about Miller and Heller, without response.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey
My impression was that consensus exists to add the following material after the comma: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia, although one of the reasons for the Amendment was to prevent elimination of militias." This added material reflects the preamble in the Amendment, which is not currently reflected in the lead, as discussed above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, for reasons described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support a less awkward way of working in the same statement. And in a prominent place but not in the first sentence of the article.  North8000  (talk)
 * If you'd prefer something like this instead (as the second sentence), I'd be supportive: "There were several different reasons for this Amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * opppose the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state covers it. J8079s (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct that that sentence in the second paragraph of the lead alludes to militia, but without using the word "militia" I doubt whether many readers would connect that sentence with the Amendment's preamble. We ought to address the preamble in a straightforward way, right up front in the lead.  Otherwise, the article will remain unstable,, and it will be unconvincing at best — POV at worst.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I think it would be wrong to give the prefatory clause so much weight. The bulk of that sentence is from the beginning of the Heller decision and describes the present interpretation of the amendment. Preserving militia as one of the reasons for the amendment is mentioned briefly in one of the commentary sections and is merely historical background. Why would they receive equal mention in the lead paragraph? Unless there is a way to capture that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause and that the prefatory clause was found not to conflict with the present interpretation, inserting it in the lead might confuse the reader into thinking we are arguing with that interpretation. Celestra (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this capture it?...."There were several different reasons for this Amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them." The prefatory clause (preamble) has been the subject of immense scholarship and debate, so I don't see why our lead would not only ignore it, but also imply that it's irrelevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We currently start with a high level summary of the present interpretation of the amendment. The prefatory clause does not conflict with that interpretation, but also does not add to it, so the clause _is_ irrelevant at that level of summary, beyond the allusion in stating that the right is unrelated to service in the militia. The second paragraph touches on the history and maybe we should add something more at the end of that paragraph. "The prefatory clause of the amendment provides 'a well regulated militia' as one of the reasons for this amendment. The high court found that the prefatory clause did not limit the scope of the operative clause, nor did it conflict with the court's interpretation of the amendment as a whole." Celestra (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems apt, thanks for thinking it over and suggesting some language. As I recall, the Court's main reason was that the militia is a "subset" rather than a synonym of the people, which seems like a sufficiently simple concept that it might fit into your sentences.  But if not, then I support your sentences without it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as an attempt to add a collective rights model POV to the article lead. WP:UNDUE weight for a theory that was repudiated by SCOTUS in both Heller and McDonald.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you have to assume bad faith all the time. FWIW, my personal view is that both Heller and McDonald were great results.  Moreover, you're blatantly contradicting your own words.  I initially suggested this: "although one of the reasons for the Amendment was to help preserve an effective citizen militia".  You responded: "There is a distinct difference between preventing elimination of a militia and preserving an effective militia."  So I followed your preferred language, and instead suggested this: "although one of the reasons for the Amendment was to prevent elimination of militias."  And your response is to accuse me of POV, when all I did is follow your own instructions.  Are you aware that you're being inconsistent, or unaware?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith. It does insert a collective rights model into the lede, which is inappropriate.  I do not, however, believe that you are trying to push a POV on this, I just think that you believe, in good faith, that it belongs in the lede, and do not see the POV issues.  On the exact language, I probably should have been clearer earlier.  I oppose any inclusion in the lede of information that supports a collective rights model as being undue weight for a minority position.  The information should be in the body somewhere, using the language that was used in the sources.  I have a tendency to offend by being too blunt at times, so I was trying to be careful here, probably too careful, which caused offense inadvertently.  That was not my intent.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I disagree with you that mentioning the prefatory clause, and explaining that the operative clause is broader than the prefatory clause, introduces any POV, or supports any collective rights model.  On the other hand, not doing so seems problematic because it downplays and disregards a substantial portion of the amendment, and neglects to educate people about that portion so they won't misunderstand it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose as is It is WP:UNDUE for the lede sentence, but I think a sentence could probably be worked in later in the lede somewhere (perhaps near the Miller lede bit). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

More
I think there clearly has been consensus to include the phrase "regardless of service in a militia". I wanted to add some more to that sentence, but consensus was against it. In contrast, myself and just about everyone else was for keeping the phrase "regardless of service in a militia".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored that phrase to the Introduction. There has been a consensus for that phrase for awhile. If it is to be removed, a consensus for such removal should be reached here first. SMP0328. (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I grant your right to your own opinion, but there's clearly no consensus. If you read the above discussion it seems the prevailing sentiment was to NOT include that statement.  In fact, some legal experts have expressed exactly the opposite opinion on the interpretation of the law -- see, for example, Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.  At most, the introduction could state that the extent of rights afforded by the law is a topic of much debate, but that recent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the law as a general protection of the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, regardless of militia service.  I have added a disputed tag so perhaps some other editors will comment.  Augurar (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS ruled that it does. That is the end of the line for debate unless SCOTUS overturns itself in the future. dissents hold no legal weight. People can disagree, and dislike, but that is meaningless legally. People think that the 1st amendment shouldnt extend to porn either, but it does and we don't raise their objections in our article on the 1st amendment. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that what the amendment is and how the amendment is legally interpreted are two different things. I see a more neutral wording has been adopted, which is better.  The phrase "individual Americans" is still in the realm of legal interpretation rather than literal reading, but I can live with that.  By the way, your practice of reverting rather than discussing violates Wikipedia's conduct guidelines.  For the future, you might want to check out this essay as well as this policy. Augurar (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

First sentence
I continue to believe that the first sentence of this article would be more stable if it said at the end something like this: "regardless of service in a militia, although the various reasons for the Amendment include preventing elimination of militias."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, sorry. No objection to discussing this later in the body, but it is undue for the lede, and super undue for the opening sentence. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence that you want makes it seem like militias are completely irrelevant, whereas the text of the Amendment says otherwise. The text doesn't mention militias merely to say they are irrelevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this article is overtly PoV pushy. We do not state in our article on the fourth amendment that it "The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause, and get an abortion." Similarly here we should not take sides in an active dispute and state that the second amendment, regardless of current judicial interpretation, factually agrees with one side of an active debate. Hipocrite (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That issue is minor compared to what Hippocrite is trying to war in.  North8000  (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two quick items for Hippocrite: (1) might a compromise be foind in the language I have suggested, and (2) SCOTUS does not ground abortion in the 4th Amendment and never has, just the Fifth and Fourteenth, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm always happy to find compromise. 2. Fucked if I know. Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The second amendment means exactly what SCOTUS says it means. There is no "side". SCOTUS is the end of the line on constitutional interpretation. It is stating highly sourced facts, using wording agreed to by consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that's not true. Whist the government must rely on the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution, we rely on reliable secondary sources, which describe a controversy over the correct interpretation being a communal or individual right. Further, there is no need for the openin paragraph to talk about militias, and their lack of applicability. Why must the first sentence do more than say that the 4th amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms? I didn't write "the fourth amendment allows people to serve in militias, but doesn't let the own guns." Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS says what the law is, and people usually obey, but that doesn't mean they have to agree SCOTUS is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say there is a non-fringe opinion that the SCOTUS got it wrong, or just dispute what the SCOTUS actually said, we describe the controversy, not just assert that opinion is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I am grateful that you are always happy to find compromise, but what abut the compromise in the first comment of this section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Requires clean up, isn't a compromise about this issue. A second sentence added after your POV sentence saying "some legal scholars dispute that...." would work. Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a compromise if it gets everyone to kick back, relax, and watch TV. The Second Amendment itself very prominently mentions "militia" so I think it's entirely proper for a lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the first sentence being a complete quotation of the amendment. The second could then say how the supreme court is currently interpreting it (individual, with limits). I'd be fine with the current compromise form, which has individual in the first sentence and not militia in the second. The only sentence that I'm not fine with is the one that says "individual right not granted to militias," which, at some point, one of you is going to admit was, at best, inartful POV pushing. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The new yorker source you attempted to pointedly use chose to summarize the ruling as "Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, determined that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”". How is it POV pushing to almost exactly quote SCOTUS and reliable sources? Are you claiming unconnected vs regardless is POV pushing? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's POV to quote Scalia as fact, without attribution? Hipocrite (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The constitution means what SCOTUS says it means. This is one of the foundations of the entire system of law in the US. We can discuss dissents and criticism later, but the amendments mean exactly what SCOTUS majority says they mean. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not a fan of the sentence that you call inartful, because it incorrectly implied that militias are irrelevant to the Second Amendment. But it did correctly reflect governing SCOTUS doctrine, so you can hardly call it POV pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Imagine the POV was "militias are irrelevant to the Second Amendment." Wouldn't that make it inartful POV pushing? Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at, and no one has suggested to insert the words you have in quotes, so I hope you'll excuse me if I try to refocus attention here. You say that you'd be okay with the sentence I propose if "A second sentence [is] added after your POV sentence saying 'some legal scholars dispute that....'".  Please give me an idea of who those scholars are, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ignore your question for now because I feel the current article is better. I'll address it later, if necessary. Do you have a problem with the article as it stands, right now - ? I feel it a reasonable, but not perfect (including "individual" in the first sentence without qualifying it as current legal interpretation is problematic) compromise. Hipocrite (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better if changes to the lead of this controversial article are discussed and approved by consensus here at the talk page. Regarding the new sentence, it says: "Current legal interpretation states that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices, but does grant the right to individuals, not to collective militias."  I do find this problematic for several reasons.  First, it says the right only applies to individual which I think is wrong per current doctrine; if Congress were to say, for example, that the National Guard of California may not have any guns, then I think the California National Guard cold sue collectively under the Second Amendment.  Second, the words "Current legal interpretation" seem very unusual for a Wikipedia legal article, and seem to imply that the interpretation is fleeting.  Third, one of the reasons for the Amendment was to protect militias rather than to abandon them, as per the plain text of the Amendment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have incorporated your concerns, I believe -. Does that work? Hipocrite (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize that (given recent statement by you to ArbCom) you are magnificently living up to your user name. Anyway, no it doesn't work.  It now says: "The Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices, and has granted the right to individuals, not merely to collective militias."  If I were uncharitable, I might say this: "You are completely distorting what SCOTUS did; they did not grant anything themselves, but rather simply interpreted what the Constitution grants."  More charitably, maybe you're not an attorney?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. I've made another attempt to fix your concerns. Hipocrite (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vests is MUCH better than grants. Im ok with this version. (maybe I would flip the two clauses in the second sentence tho) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with changing it to "The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices," but given the environ here and the fact that I've just been threatened with 3rr, and now no longer have an unbroken string of edits, will not be making that change myself. Hipocrite (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, I seem to be up at bat. If you want, please post the sentence here as you propose (clauses flipped), and I'll probably install it.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would perhaps add a "but" in between the clauses? I don't think anyone would be counting collaborative edits against 3rr, particularly ones that aren't reversions. Im sorry you feel hobbled by an edit warring threat, but you made that threat first. Care to drop the new evidence from the arbcom and move forward with mutual civility? In any case, I will take your comment above as a support, Anythingyouwant, do you have objection to flipping the two clauses?  (and flipped to but there, I think it makes sense, but if others object, no worries).
 * The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias but also ruled that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The way we got there is another story.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

break

 * (EC, not responding to last post) :::::On the question of whether the individual right legally exists, Scotus is definitive. I.E., on that question, it is not a source for the reality, it defines the reality. Same as with the right to have an abortion.  Saying that Scotus made the wrong decision or that the constitution should be changed is a different question than what the current legal reality is. On your second point, one could argue that the lead should not try to state what the amendment does, but that is a matter of editorial opinion.   North8000  (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. The reality is that the supreme court, and thus the govt of the us believes it's a collective right. There are dissenting voices, however. Do you really think the first sentence is better with the language "regardless of militia?" Note that that is the first time militia is used. Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you meant individual in your "reality" sentence and not collective? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Im fine with discussing controversy/debate. But not in the opening sentences. There have been multiple rulings. There are a PLETHORA of reliable sources interpreting those rulings for us. All of them agree that the 2A DOES include an individual right, unconnected to service in a militia. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure you are. Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what is "best" for the first sentence. I do know that it is accurate, well sourced, and points out notable points.  North8000  (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There is some discussion on my talk page (section "2A"), and I am now even more firmly confirmed that the opening sentence is incorrect, esp. the "individual" part. Saying "2A protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms" is fine, as an opening sentence: that's what it says. It doesn't say "individual": it doesn't say that at all. That it is interpreted to protect an individual's right, outside of a militia, should then follow. The second sentence is fine as it is. Note that the individual right is the first thing mentioned in that second sentence, so it's hardly like something is left out. I am not quite sure why editors are adamant about keeping "individual" in the first sentence when a. it's not in the text and b. we needed the Supreme Court to rule on it thusly, when the second sentence makes it quite clear and places it in the proper context. I find some confirmation in the comments by (and I hope I read them right) on the matter, but besides that, it seems commonsensical to me to not have something in the first sentence that had to be explained that way by SCOTUS. (And by that I don't mean "it's their POV/opinion" or something like that: POV is the wrong word to use, and a legal opinion is not like an opinion opinion.) Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the word "individual" from the first sentence. I would note, however, that this is a close question, given that the text of the Amendment clearly implies an individual right.  That is, the text of 2A talks about a militia, but then switches over to a term that is much broader than that, i.e. "the people".  So I could go either way on this.  Mainly, I want User:Drmies to be happy.  :-) Perhaps a compromise might be this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans, and not just militia members, to keep and bear arms."  What do you think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the "second sentence" option to that. "The supreme court ruled" is at least unambiguous vs us trying to qualify acceptable assertions via WP:OR. There is and always will be dispute as to the "true meaning" of the amendment - the best we can get apparently is what the supreme court ruled, and what the practical effect of that is. I still say this is contrary to the way we describe every other major rights holding of the supreme court, but it is what it is. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's WP:OR to construct a first sentence that does not mention SCOTUS and yet alludes to the plain fact that 2A starts by talking about a "militia" but then switches to the broader term "people". However, if you would prefer to simply remove the word "individual" from the first sentence, then I could live with that.  Before making the change, could we please have Drmies' thoughts about what I've suggested.  I haven't been topic-banned quite yet, after all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes me happy to take that word out, yes. How the militia is to be handled, that's up to you--and by "you" I mean US citizens. Thanks, and thanks to my new legal adviser, ArtifexMayhem (BTW, I so stopped beating my wife). Drmies (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, perhaps a compromise might be this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans, and not just militia members, to keep and bear arms." What do you think? Gaijin, do you oppose?  How about you, Drmies?  If this is unacceptable, then I will support simply removing the word "individual" from the first sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think this is a matter of cow trading--individual out only if militia is in? I would presume that your militia members are Americans, no? No, I don't see the need for that. I think that the sentence I proposed pretty much captures the main thrust of it, and I thought you just agreed to that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a matter of trading. The way the sentence is now ("individual Americans") suggests that not just militia members have the right.  The way I've proposed does too, but it sticks more closely to the text of 2A.  But since you say "no", I will revert myself.  I just wanted you to address what I proposed.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I don't follow (and thanks for reverting): right now it says that "Americans" have the right, without speaking of which ones and how; that's clarified in the next sentence, "individuals, not merely collective militias". Anyway, I'm happy with the first paragraph. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding "which ones", the text of the amendment strongly implies that it's more than militias. After all, the Amendment starts out by talking about militias, but then uses a much broader term ("the people").  It's very simple English.  :) The way it is now isn't bad, just a tad incomplete, IMO.  So we can leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But I and others read that to mean, basically, "people in a militia". Grammatically and semantically speaking, the amendment is the weirdest example of codified writing I know of. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

ironically, "Americans" is up for grabs much more than "individuals". The Supreme court ruled specifically on individuals, but in McDonald did not have a majority on how the amendment was incorporated. The plurality of Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy went with the "Due Process" clause of the 14th amendment. Thomas went with the "Privledges and Immunities" clause (which would overturn the Slaughter-House Cases). The Privileges and Immunities clause explicitly only applies only to Citizens of the US. The Due Process clause covers a much wider swath (Residents, tourists, sometimes even foreigners overseas, possibly even illegal aliens). As there is not a majority decision on that point, "Americans" while colloquially common is probably not legally correct. (although I suppose the latter is a superset of the former, so there is no question that it does apply to citizens) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a case pending currently in Federal court that hinges on this particular issue http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, no longer pending. The immigrant won, and South Dakota changed its law http://www.aclusd.org/gov.-daugaard-signs-change-to-concealed-weapons-law.html Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, are you telling me I can't go out and get a gun, or a couple of them? What is this world coming to. Next thing you know I find that even though I pay as much taxes as you do, and have for years, I can't vote. Oh, wait: there actually is taxation without representation, and that's a good reminder to include a "Don't Tread On Me" bumper sticker this year when I file. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On that point you are just misunderstanding "representation". You are represented, you just don't get to choose the representation. (As opposed to residents of DC, who actually do not have representation yet are still taxed). This was the same understanding for the founders. They didn't have any representation in parliament - but nobody was arguing that representation required universal suffrage. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Drmies, Gaijin is mistaken. You packed a lot into those most recent comments, Gaijin.  As you know, Slaughter-House did not involve any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so the Thomas opinion would not have overturned Slaughter-House whatsoever.  As to the P or I Clause, yes it protects only citizens; however, the Equal Protection Clause could arguably extend that protection to the same non-citizens who are directly covered by 2A.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, slaughterhouse being overturned or not is irrelevant - the point is that P&I by itself is citizens only. an additional ruling would be needed down the road to see if Equal Protection changes that, (which is not required for due process). I believe there are several other federal cases bubbling around on the non-citizen issue, so we are likely to get a circuit split at some point that would have SCOTUS opine for us. (Also I expect AWB and defense outside the home to hit them at some point in the relatively near future)Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, either way. I'm a bit miffed that I don't even get to vote on who gets on the school board, even though they're spending my money in my district and it involves my children's education. But that's for another activist platform... Drmies (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that....so I think I'm missing some of the fun!  North8000  (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently
In the beginning, it said: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms."

And then there was User:Miguel Escopeta who said:  "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

I took seven deep breaths, and at the end of the seventh breath said we couldn't go wrong with this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to keep and bear arms."

User:SMP0328. reverted back to Miguel Escopeta, because "people" could mean individuals or could mean collective groups. So that's the genesis of what we have now. SMP0328 is correct that "people" is somewhat ambiguous, but that's the whole point: the text is somewhat ambiguous and then SCOTUS cleared it up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

New Ninth Circuit decision
The Ninth Circuit has ruled that "while government might forbid carrying a concealed gun in public, or carrying a gun openly in public, it cannot do both." Should this case be added to the article? I believe it should be added, but I want to gain a consensus here so I can avoid an edit war. SMP0328. (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is certainly significant with respect to the 2A, and sources have acknowledged it as such.  North8000  (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to deal with the circuits cohesively. There was a section on this (now archived) with other circuit cases Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States/Archive_3 with some proposed text. This 9th circuit one could be added into a paragraph about "post-heller/mcdonald lower courts" and copied around to the various articles. I would be exceptionally surprised if at least one of these cases isn't ruled on by SCOTUS in the next year or so though. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * agree we should add.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT - This seems more tacitly 2A than directly related at first glance, but I do agree that its noteworthy. Maybe one of the "gun laws" articles might be more appropriate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean tangentially? The cases are specifically covering about if the self defense right extends outside the home? How isn't that on point to the 2A? (Although certainly there are more narrow implications for the various State articles, and the carry articles etc.) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Tangential", yes the "50 cent word" I meant to use... :) I can see the connection, but as far as the 2A article is concerned is it really deserving of inclusion. I'm not voting one way or the other, but the article is already quite large. Where do we draw the line?


 * As Just states, the ruling is based on 2A related things, but its not a ruling on 2A itself. Hence my original comment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * this is very straightforward. We have a section for other court rulings in the article.  This ruling bases itself on the second amendment and on heller and McDonald.  It belongs here clearly.  If there is a better home for it, please post it here so we know where it would be more appropriate.  The ruling might merit it's own article but at a minimum note of it has a home here.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone made an article for the case already. Pretty stubby so far, but likely to grow a lot. Lots of good info we could steal from the calguns wiki page on the case (obviously plantiff slanted and primary sources, but thats still a good resources) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The page Firearm case law in the United States needs to be re-worked I'll post some comments there when I get a chance J8079s (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Potentially upcoming scotus cases
Per 's comment above about "In the home" being important, It looks like there are two SCOTUS cases that could be granted cert later this month that could address the issue. They have a slight wrinkle, as they both ALSO involve the issue of age 18-21 and access to guns, so if the court takes the case, a lot would depend on how narrowly they examine the issue. "NRA v McCraw" specifically has the issues laid out as "(1) Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public; (2) Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults; and (3) whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause." Personally I think the 18-21 thing is a cluster, and they should have moved forward with a case involving adults, so that there would be less distraction, but it is what it is. 

A third scotus case also on the docket for Feb is Lane_v._Holder. This one I would put money on - I predict will be granted cert, and almost assuredly will find for the plaintiff, suing because as a resident of DC they are legally unable to purchase a handgun. (There are no firearms dealers (FFLs) in DC. It is currently illegal to buy a handgun in a state which you are not a resident, so she can't go next door to Maryland or Virginia). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All interesting cases. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of these cases is reviewed by SCOTUS. Then we could all have fun incorporating the new decision(s) into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These cases are starting to get more buzz in the media. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_second Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I guess we are going to be left in the dark for a while longer. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/court-denies-gun-rights-cases/ http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022414zor_19m2.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * it makes sense. The court doesn't want to litigate, it wants only to interpret. So cases brought directly by the nra are likely not to get heard. More telling is the California strategy to not appeal the decision of the district court's ninth's decision. Those cases are more likely to be accepted by SCOTUS if appealed from the district court decisions. The pro gun control groups are scared that appeals might further cement the right to carry by yet another decision by SCOTUS. In a sense, the court has already spoken....it confers an individual right to "keep on you, your home, your property" AND "bear on your person as you go about your business in public". The heller and McDonald decisions are cascading down.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the "bear on your person as you go about your business in public" being part of a ruling, where are you pulling that from? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS only addresses the questions narrowly posed before it. If it strays too far, it runs at risk of being seen as an activist court. The cases of Heller and McDonald were about the right to "keep" arms at home. SCOTUS interpreted that the Second Amendment is an individual right and does enumerate an individual right to "keep" arms. But, there is another phrase, "and bear" that as I recall SCOTUS didn't really address (although I haven't read the full renderings so I'm open to being educated). So, if the right to "keep" arms is individual and inalienable then "and bear" must also be inalienable. "To bear" means to carry about with you with purpose so the second amendment also enumerates a right to "bear" arms in public. To date, about 44 states have "shall" issue or constitutional carry provisions - respecting that inalienable right. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise that the founders meant to limit carrying only to one's home or property (and this is not reflected in the body of law).....you can't defend the state and yourself if you can only bear arms in your home. That is what the ninth district court has reaffirmed, that the people have a right to bear arms outside the home. The Ninth contends that you might be able to regulate the "manner of carry" but that you cannot deprive average citizens of their inalienable rights. The Illinois Supreme court found the same thing if I'm not mistaken in 2012 - aligning itself with the very vast majority of the states. So, the SCOTUS ruling in Heller and McDonald didn't just provide guidance on the right to keep arms in the home, it provided that the second amendment has equal standing to the other amendments and that the law needs to be interpreted in a particular fashion and that gives a hint on how the court will act in the future, particularly if the court's composition remains the same. If the question is brought before them to interpret "and bear" I'm sure that interpretation will be much easier to nail down - of course it means to bear arms wherever an individual has a legal right to exist (that's not just my viewpoint, that's the viewpoint of 44 States, recently the ninth district court's finding, and also the Illinois supreme court ruling that changed Illinois from effectively no carry to shall issue - so I'm not alone). So I would imagine that pro-gun control forces do not want to have more cases heard before SCOTUS because that might force the court to continue its line of interpretation. So it's not just about the narrow ruling per se, it's about how the court is interpreting the amendments that is instructive to other courts.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari (i.e., refused to review) in all three cases. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what Gaijin was saying -- not surprising at all to me. If I were SCOTUS I wouldn't have taken them either.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer: I just see a bunch of trees and no forest here
This article has a lot of background, theory, history, case law, and commentary. What is has scant little of is a direct explanation of exactly what rights this amendment does and doesn't provide.

Most of that seems buried in the case law, however that text by volume seems to be 60% primary source quotations, 20% historical specifics, 11% demarcating the authority of the findings, and 9% detailing the actual implications of the rulings. And the actual 9% (like the rest of the case law) is organized by date, not by topic.

Questions along the lines of "does the second amendment prohibit US governments from prohibiting:" All weapons in civilian hands? Certain categories of weapons? Non-fire arms weapons? Schools of martial art? requiring registrations? controlling trade? Restrictions for former criminals? the blind?, juveniles? the mentally ill? the blind? These questions (I suspect) are common among people who come to read this article. I'd also argue they should be straight froward to answer (I.e not requiring 4,500 words of scholarly reading). Or in the situations where the law is untested, simply make that clear. 162.218.212.1 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many unanswered questions regarding the scope of this amendment. There are countless opinions regarding those questions, but the official meaning of the amendment is provided by the Supreme Court. Explanations of those decisions and decisions by the various U.S. Courts of Appeals are provided in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of those questions are not concretely answered, and to the degree that they are answered it is from the twisting,confusing, and often contradictory caselaw that we cite in this article. There are many laws on the books banning certain weapons, or certain people. Until such time as a case reaches SCOTUS challenging that law, it is "presumed" legal, but the trend in recent years has been for each law that does reach them to be struck down - we don't have a WP:CRYSTALL ball to tell ahead of time which way decisions will go, and any guesses as to that would be WP:OR. At lower levels (districts, states) there are a myriad of different results for those same issues. In other cases, (the blind etc) there are generally not laws currently on the books to be tested one way or another.

However, here is my stab as to what the current de-facto state of the law is (which is not the same thing as what I think it should be, or what a "correct" interpretation is, etc)
 * all weapons in civilian hands - Definitely protected against, per Heller and McDonald
 * Certain categories of weapons - probably, but tough to tell. No AWBs have been tested recently (post Heller), and the NFA doesn't technically ban machine guns etc, just taxes them. Miller says any militia weapon is protected, and Heller says anything in common use is protected. No good answer.
 * Non-firearms weapons - Probably protected, particularly knives per recent academic research, and some VERY OLD historical precedents (1800s) but untested under any modern framework
 * Schools of martial art - probably not protected under the 2A, but would be protected under the 1st most likely (assembly, speech)
 * registrations - not directly addressed, but SCOTUS had a chance to strike down DC's registration in Heller, and did not do so, but required DC to allow Heller to register, so probably.
 * Trade - Very complex, involving many parts of the constitution - not directly addressed or tested under the 2A, but there are rumors of the Obama administration reclassifying "sporting purposes" which would disallow many weapons currently being imported. If that happens I would expect a case to bubble up quickly. Current trade restrictions on imports have not been challenged AFAIK
 * Former criminals - Felons, and domestic violence convicts, not covered currently. Several cases bubbling in lower courts challenging to restore rights. Other types of criminals - probably protected
 * Mentally ill - not covered. Again lower court bubbling challenges to restore rights
 * Blind - Currently protected and may own firearms and concealed carry licenses (per recent blind CCW controversy)
 * Juveniles - Under 18 probably not protected (but untested I think). 18-21 currently not protected in some situations (SCOTUS recently denied cert for two 18-21 challenges, letting those restrictions stand)

However, due to the complexity of the rulings, and multiple jurisdictions involved, I do not think it is possible to succinctly and correctly state the above within wiki policy in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 162 what you are looking for is Right to keep and bear arms in the United States or possibly Gun laws in the United States by state. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

SMP0328: I'm sure the data is in the case law presented, just as the the relevant information about an astronomical object might be derived from a listing of spectroscopy data. But this is an encyclopedia, not a database. Ideally basic information should be interpreted by experts outside the wiki.

Gaijin42: The specific questions weren't really my point, but just there to provide concrete examples of why I see this article as lacking; although I do appreciate your effort in answering. I'd assume there must be secondary sources summarizing what is protected, what isn't protected, and even explicitly covering what's untested.

Scalhotrod: Thank you, but the right to bear arms page also suffers from the same problems to an extent. The gun laws by state article (appropriately) focuses on specific laws in specific locations; not at the national level, and not on what local laws can't change.162.218.212.1 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @162 - unfortunately, except for what has been specifically and narrowly ruled upon, nobody can tell you for sure. That's why this is such a contentious debate - both sides are staking out their interpretation of the grey area. There are no reliable sources that can tell you exactly what the contours of protection are, except for laws that have been explicitly struck down or upheld. There is a very wide gulf in between those two. (There are many reliable sources that can source a particular opinion of what the contours may be, or what someone wants them to be, but thats not the same thing) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Polls
Are there any poll results that say what percentage of people support the Second Amendment, versus those who would like to repeal or change it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pre-heller, and not exactly what you asked, but interesting. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

closer to your question, and also addresses the tyranny issue you and LB were discussing (just after newtown) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny Gaijin42 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would such a poll be relevant to this article? Should any poll regarding support for, or desired change to (including repeal), the Second Amendment be included? SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In an article about the 2A, you don't think information about public opinion of the 2A is relevant? As to your second question, assuming they are high quality polls, probably. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gaijin, that's helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think including polls in this article would lead to many NPOV-based arguments, especially over which ones are of "high quality". SMP0328. (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's a major pollster who has sampled support for the 2A, and no other major pollster has found anything contradictory, then it could be Wikiworthy, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with SMP, adding polls or similar information on public opinion would just invite WP:COATRACKING as well steer this article away from its main purpose which is to discuss 2A directly and not include or discuss every tangential issue. There are a myriad of other articles where that is far more appropriate. That is what the See Also section and Wikilinks are for. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence
In the Ratification debates section is this sentence:"Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment[97] and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,[98] quell insurrection,[99][100] and protect against tyranny.[101]" The Second Amendment was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, so it does not belong in the section that is about the Constitution's ratification. Should this sentence be moved to another part of the article or should this sentence simply be removed from the article? SMP0328. (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on the text quoted in the citations, the citations do not support the main claim of the sentence, so I would just remove it. It certainly won't hurt the article to prune back some of these sections which seem to argue how the amendment should be interpreted now that the dust is settling. Celestra (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. SMP0328. (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014
Remove: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.

This change should be made because the original text distorts the readers beliefs about the second amendment leading one to believe that the right to bear is not granted by the constitution, when in reality the court never declared that. The courts decision was as followed.

Replace with: "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."

Sorce: "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349&q=United+States+v.+Cruikshank+right+to+bear+arms&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1" after number 553 on left side of page.

Drevilishman (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The lead of this article has been produced by consensus-building discussions and changes should have some amount of consensus before being implemented. The key point I see in your suggested change is that the quote is not from the original text but from a syllabus of that decision. This gist of the current quote seems valid. Wouldn't it be better to simply correct the quote? Something like:


 * In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.


 * That would correct the mistake without including an excess of original text which is already summarized in the lead. Older and ... well older (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Peruta v. San Diego decision in the Ninth Circuit
The section "United States Courts of Appeals decisions" should probably include the recent Peruta v. San Diego decision from the Ninth Circuit, in which a three-judge panel "reversed the district court’s summary judgment and held that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." The decision, which took the time to critique the reasoning behind conflicting decisions from other circuits, also held that "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

PDF of the appellate decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/13/10-56971%20web.pdf

Per the Wikipedia page on the decision itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego), "Unless overridden, this decision will force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry." I question the conclusion, but the significance is there.

San Diego County has indicated that it does not intend to appeal the decision. The Ninth is currently weighing whether California Attorney General Kamala Harris may intervene along with her request for an en banc review by the full court. Either way -- given the scope of the opinion, the historical questions it raises and precedent it creates, and the hard split it takes with the other appeals circuits -- there's a good chance it's headed to SCOTUS and is thus worthy of inclusion here.--Strongpoint (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This case was discussed earlier this year and the consensus appeared to favor inclusion. So put it in the article if you want. SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the earlier discussion; mea culpa. I'll try to draft something up — boldly — and see how it flies.--Strongpoint (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Factual error
In Section 2.2 is this sentence:

There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.

The French Revolution began in 1789 and the citation (fn. 77) cites a letter from John Adams to his wife Abigail Adams dated 22 December 1793. Therefore, if there is no objection, I am slightly rewording the sentence to make it more accurate, as follows:

There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution. American In Brazil (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be factual errors. Instead, you simply have made improvements to the wording of that sentence. I agree with those improvements, but neither version of that sentence was factually incorrect. SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit/addition
I would like to propose the following edit/addition under the heading 'Meaning of Well-Regulated'

Source: The general principles of constitutional law in the United States of America By Thomas McIntyre Cooley (188) at page 298.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7-g9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false

Text from source:

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.

Proposed addition to Wikipedia entry:

Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, explained the meaning of the term 'well-regulated' within the context of the Second Amendment in his 1880 legal commentaries on the U.S. Constitution. Cooley stated the term inherently implied the individual possession of arms as well learning to handle and use arms efficiently.

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbugbee (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a really good quote for getting across that view of the meaning. Per WP:PEACOCK, you probably should drop the "perhaps ... century" part, but otherwise I think that would make a good summary. The bigger problem is that the section is already out of balance with two bits explaining this view and one explaining the other. I'd be in favor of replacing one or both of the current "pro-gun" bits with this. What's everybody else think? Older and ... well older (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the quote and new source too and agree with removal of the WP:PEACOCK. One comment that I'd like to make is that the section lacks much chronological detail. It's a collection of statements and judicial opinions without much context as to when it was said. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing the WP:PEACOCK language is fine, I just lifted that from an earlier reference to Cooley in the entry. As for replacing one of the current "pro-gun" bits I am uncertain.  Being an attorney and a history buff I am aware of the overwhelming consensus that existed regarding the Second Amendment in jurisprudence prior to the late 19th/early 20th Centuries.  I could dig up the Arkansas dissent that kicked off the idea that the Second Amendment is a collective/militia-based right rather than an individual right if you like.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbugbee (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your suggestion of moving to 3:2 has merit if there is a worthwhile quote summarizing the other view, but then I wonder how much of the article should be taken up by this detail. The other, similar sections seem to only have one quote from each side and that seems more reasonable to me. I'm going to bow out of the discussion at this point, though, as I have said my piece and don't feel strongly about any of the remaining choices. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Starting article with court interpretation
First time editing talk here, so patience with me please. I notice that this page opens with the Heller case ruling instead of a summary of the original text. This reads to me as not neutral. The Wikepdia entries of the other amendments do not open this way. This concerns me as some people will take the first line of an entry as gospel. What about putting court interpretation after a summary of the original text? Ricardlion (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome Ricardlion. We start the page with a summary of what the amendment means, just as we do all of the other amendments. No amendment article I am aware of actually captures the text in the lead of the article, but there might be some like that which I haven't read. Heller is mentioned because the Supreme Court is the body which decides what the amendment means and Heller was the case in which they made the landmark decision about that meaning. Including other opinions, or including the text and "letting the reader decide", would actually be less NPOV than the current lead since it attempts to obscure the authoritative meaning that some editors disagree with. You should read the talk page archives to see earlier discussions of this same issue. Thanks and, again, welcome, Older and ... well older (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arms
Some of what is written here, like the attempt to explain the meaning of "Arms" It means basically means small arms. But they try to say it does not refer to arms the military would use. That is flat out wrong. Citizens were allowed to own battleships of the line back in those days. Now I am not saying arms means one can own a fully operational M1 or a Stinger, but to claim a limit when there was no specified limit which is why they used arms and not firearms, or swords. I think that needs to be addressed. I have seen too much politics permeate Wikipedia and in many biographical articles a lot of bias has infected those too. Its at a point now that many schools have bans on the use of Wikipedia. TexasChickStuckInCali — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasChickStuckInCali (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome and thanks for sharing your feedback about the article. I don't disagree with your other observations, but you should probably stick to discussing this article on this talk page. Was there a specific change you would like to make which you would like to discuss? Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Article needs balance
There is considerable evidence that one of the motivations behind the Second Amendment was a concern that white men be armed to defend against African-American slaves and Native Americans who might rise up demanding their freedom. This whole argument, made by people as prominent as Patrick Henry, is completely missing from the article. So it does not tell the full story. This aspect needs to be added to make for a more balanced article, in accordance with Wikipedia's aim to be neutral. The omission of important factual information results in a biased article.

Wsamuel3 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduce some sources on the talk page so we can understand the material and history behind it. SantiLak (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control
Under "See Also," I posted a link to "Gun Control." This has been reverted.

Isn't this a relevant discussion to the Second Amendment?


 * Yeah which is why it is already linked at least twice in the body of the article. "See also" sections are not to be used for adding redundant links.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014
70.190.231.145 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is your request? Lectonar (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Amending what?
It seems to me the article doesn't say which Article, Section, Clause of the Constitution the Amendment is amending. Crock81 (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Amendments to the Constitution do not amend/change the text of any provision of the Constitution. An amendment supersedes any contrary provision. For example, the Twelfth Amendment supersedes Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. Regarding the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it supersedes every provision granting the federal government authority. SMP0328. (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Authority to do what in which Clause? It seems to me the Amendment is about preventing infringement of the law (Constitution) as ratified, so I'm a bit at a loss to understand the Wikipedia article since it is, without referring to the appropriate Clause, lacking in context Crock81 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bill of Rights limits all federal and State authority, not any one clause of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is about preventing the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, not about the unamended/original Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What in the Constitution could cause such an infringement that would require the Amendment? Crock81 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This, list most of the bill of rights, is there to protect the rights of the people from the government being able to limit them by passing a law. Without this, a law could be passed banning everyone from owning a shotgun, and nothing could prevent it. While the right is not absolute (automatic weapons, cannons, etc aren't something most people can get), the core of it cannot be limited by a simple law. That is the power, and the reason, this is protected in an amendment. Ravensfire ( talk ) 04:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm now convinced that English skills in the general population are well below par, and comprehension also.
 * THIS AMENDMENT IS RELATED ONLY TO MILITIA.
 * There is no point in having a Militia if it is not ARMED because than it can not perform per Article 1 Section 8.
 * The subject of the Amendment is not the RIGHT of keeping firearms since this is a REQUIREMENT FOR MILITIA SERVICE, but the possible infringement to prevent it.
 * What infringement could prevent someone ALREADY SIGNED UP WITH MILITIA IN 1785 from keeping arms he requires for the service? Crock81 (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2nd A is not RELATED ONLY TO MILITIA. A review of the SCOTUS opinion in Heller may help you understand. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see we're discussing your personal view of the 2nd Amendment. It is, however, out of whack with the current legal interpretation of the amendment.  If you wish to discuss this further, please find a blog or forum as Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your personal views on a subject, but to review and develop articles based on reliable sources.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Crock81, the federal government could have disarmed the militias and used a standing army or mercenaries to enforce its authority. (Whether that was a realistic possibility or even allowable under the U.S. constitution is another matter.)  Ravensfire, a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision cannot rewrite history.  This is not 1984, where history is being constantly re-written.  TFD (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Redundant links
The article is loaded with duplicated links including 2 in the lede, 6 for Heller, 5 for Miller, 4 for McDonald, 3 for Cruikshank. I removed many so that there were no more than 2. Grahamboat (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

... of individuals ...
In the lede - "...protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms."

Uh, well, this is a disputed interpretation. I think it would be better, in the lede, for the wikipedia to not stake out this claim, that it is a right "of individuals". For most of our history, this amendment was considered a right of states, rather than a right of individuals. There is a great deal of complexity in this statement as currently made, that is covered lower in the article, but I think, in the lede, that the less specific statement "protects the right to keep and bear arms" would be more appropriate.

Comments? Since this is a highly volatile subject, I toss it out for discussion rather than boldly make the change. Ratagonia (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The current legal interpretation is that the right is that of individuals. See District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In those decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the right was of the States. Finally, for most of American history the amendment was considered to be protecting an individual right. SMP0328. (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I second what SMP0328. said, the current legal interpretation is that the right is that of the individuals. There are supreme court rulings and citations to back it up. If some people disagree with the interpretation then thats their opinion but the supreme court ruled that it is an individual right and that makes that the supreme legal interpretation. - SantiLak  (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead is fine the way it is. In this context, it actually doesn't matter much what the history is. It doesn't even matter what the text of the amendment is. What matters is what the Supreme Court says the amendment means.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, the lede currently reads as a propaganda piece for those wishing to promote a particular point of view. Supreme Court interpretations change over time - it's the amendment itself which should be the focus of the lede. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It protects the human right of self defense. It's based on natural law. Kb1cvh (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Court of Appeals Section
In this section there is a list of Court of Appeals decisions. I believe it does not serve much of a purpose. I propose replacing it with a section discussing the proper level of scrutiny (intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.). This section would consist of articles and Court of Appeals decisions. What level of scrutiny should be applied comes up in most Second Amendment cases. So how the Courts of Appeals deal with this issue is relevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The page Firearms case law needs to be fixed then a short summary here. J8079s (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Text section issues
In the "text" section, it reads:

"One version was passed by the Congress,[24][25][26][27][28]"

This is a sentence, but ends with a comma (then follows a new paragraph with a capital letter) and the "references" are all over the map.

Is this a copy/paste fragment error? Because it makes no sense that I can understand. Huw Powell (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That errant comma has been replaced with a period. Thanks for pointing out the error. As for the references, what do you believe specifically is wrong with them? SMP0328. (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd Amendment
This article is not correct. I have looked on many law sites to only to find that many things cited on here are incorrect. Please correct. The right to bear arms as an individual is not what the second amendment is all about. It is for protecting ourselves through the proper channels, like Coast Guard, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.21.50 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not according to DC v. Heller which says that it does guarantee the right to bear arms to an individual. This isn't a place to advocate for your own interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have to follow what the courts have said. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not according to the people who authored it, either. It was definitely an individual right. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about that. Madison himself (the author of the 2nd Amendment) even stated that it was a way for the people to prevent tyranny by the federal government.Vbscript2 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism in 'Ratification Debates'
A significant portion of this article's text in the 'Ratification Debates' section appears to be directly lifted from a 1999 court ruling. While it's a good source, the body of the text does not make it clear that the text from "A foundation of American political thought..." down to the end of the 'Ratification Debates' section is a verbatim quote of the ruling in USA v. Emerson, 1999. - Vbscript2 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the Human Right Self Defense Human Right Self Defense This right protects our right to defend us from murders and rapists. It's a basic human right. It's based on [|Natural Law.]

Ai6pg (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Request not in "please change X to Y" format.  --  haminoon  ( talk ) 08:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Objective scholarship
If you do a little research, you will find that Stephen Halbrook is not an objective scholar of the 2nd Amendment but was in fact paid by the NRA to produce a number of articles favorable to the private right view which its more radical members espoused. See "The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia", New Republic, 8/24/12; Bogus, "Heller and Insurrectionism" 59 Syracuse L.Rev. 253 (2008); Bogus, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment", UCDavis L.Rev. 31 (1998) 309, notes 36-38.71.222.44.154 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an interesting article here that validates the ip's claims. It appears that the sections need to be reshaped to show that he is representing pro-gun arguments with consideration given to the weight of his claims relevant to the weight of other claims. Winner 42 Talk to me!  15:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in no way validates the claim of the IP. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, first let's identify the refs you (the IP) are using:
 * Richard A. Posner, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia,, Aug. 24, 2012. Nowhere in this review of Scalia & Garner's book does Posner mention Halbrook, the NRA, paid editing, nor anything else in your assertion. It's a book review by an outspoken opponent of Scalia and a long-time proponent of gun control. Yet Posner also authored the opinion declaring the gun ban by Illinois unconstitutional citing Scalia in Heller, see Moore v. Madiagan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012).
 * Carl T. Bogus, Heller and Insurrectionism, 59 253 (2008). Again, nowhere does this article (actually from a symposium talk) mention Halbrook, the NRA, paid editing, nor anything else in your assertion. Second, the article is discussing the alleged endorsement in Heller of the right of the people to rise up against the government, a view which has been uniformly rejected by other scholars, at least as far as this article (it was only cited by 8 others according to Westlaw, 6 per Lexis, even Google Scholar only lists 13).
 * Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 309 (2008). Again, nowhere does this article mention Halbrook, the NRA, paid editing, nor anything else in your assertion. I'm not really sure what this pre-Heller scholarship has to do with this, but a 1998 article espousing a position completely repudiated by Scalia and Alito (and echoed by Posner in Moore) doesn't seem to be good scholarship either.
 * Halbrook, on the other hand, has both a PhD and a JD, and has argued (and won) two gun control cases at the Supreme Court. If you want to discredit Halbrook, this isn't the way. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Exact wording at the top
Could someone please edit the article and put the exact wording at the top. I'm ten minutes into searching through the article and still haven't found it, yet. It needs to go before all the petty quibbles and bits the article is leading with now. THANKS --2602:306:30BA:28A0:18DF:1AE1:1947:EA26 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Click on the first thing in the table of contents, titled Text. Ratemonth (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Every article about an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has a Text section containing the amendment's wording with that section coming immediately after the article's Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The "deterring tyrannical government" reference
In looking at the footnote for the claim of the "deterring tyrannical government," the gist of the footnote does not support the claim of deterrence. It's the opposite and should not be included in the article. Either remove the claim or change it to "citation needed".
 * Here's the contents of that footnote: Col. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. (1995). "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment". 62 TENN. L. REV. 643. Retrieved December 18, 2012. "The concept postulates that the Second Amendment was intended to provide the means by which the people, as a last resort, could rise in armed revolt against tyrannical authorities."
 * How does the "gist" of this footnote not support the reference to the Second Amendment being for "deterring tyrannical government"? SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://libcom.org/library/racist-roots-gun-control-clayton-e-cramer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015
It is entirely inappropriate to describe a theory ("sophisticated collective right model") by quoting only a theoretical opposition to it. If this is a supported theory then it requires a proper description of the theory, and then support and opposition are appropriate and worthy to be included in the discussion. If it is not an appropriate theory then it should be deleted from the Wikipedia page. Regardless, it is entirely misleading to posit a theory without evidence and then provide commentary that claims to disprove this theory.

50.83.25.64 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please specify which portions of the article you find problematic? If you quote portions of the article for us, it might be easier to understand what you would like to change. In any event, the article goes into detail about the nature of the interpretive debate prior to DC v. Heller and explains that some scholars and judges believed the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to possess firearms (many still support this theory, see e.g. Justice John Paul Stevens). There are plenty of sources in the article that substantiate the fact that many scholars did, indeed, support the "collective right model." You may also want to check the portion of the article that discusses the dissenting opinions in Heller; that also offers a good summary of the interpretive debate. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The portion of the article I find problematic is the following:


 * The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.


 * Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia.[144]

As I explained, if the "sophisticated collective right model" is a legitimate lens for interpreting the 2nd amendment, than the appropriate way to describe the theory is to cite the basis for the theory and/or explain where the theory is derived or codified. The theory is put forth in US v. Emerson and is described in V.A.iii. Thus, the description of the "sophisticated collective right model" should include reference to US v. Emerson or a summary thereof.

To introduce this theory for interpretation and subsequently use to describe that theory a portion of commentary that is intended to disprove that theory is not an appropriate. Furthermore, the quote used to rebut the "sophisticated collective right model" (even though it had not even been properly explained before this quote was introduced) employs language that is clearly biased against the model and contains false and/or unsupported presuppositions, such as "on it's way down the collective memory hole", a loaded phrase that presupposes without evidence that this particular theory (1) was confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts (when? how many? a majority? in major media?), (2) "is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted" (is it being talked about less? how much was it referenced before? how many people used to believe this? how much is it referenced now? how many people currently believe this? are these people legal scholars?), (3) "With it's demise" (again - what demise? demise compared to what level of popularity or belief among experts?), (4) "Without missing a beat" (this phrase is clearly not a factual or evidential phrase and is used derogatorily in this context).

I agree with you that "the article goes into detail about the nature of the interpretive debate prior to DC v. Heller and explains that some scholars and judges believed the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to possess firearms (many still support this theory, see e.g. Justice John Paul Stevens). There are plenty of sources in the article that substantiate the fact that many scholars did, indeed, support the "collective right model.""

I am pointing out at the "sophisticated collective right model", not the "collective right model" that is described prior, is not only inadequately explained, but the supporting quotation argues against its validity (even thought it had not previously been adequately explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.25.64 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. The description of the models appears to rely entirely on Halbrook's assessment of the taxonomy, which may not be the best way to distinguish the "sophisticated collective-rights model" from the traditional "collective-rights model." I think the best course of action would be to add subheadings in the "20th Century section" (where this portion of text is currently located), one each of for the "collective-rights model," "sophisticated collective-rights model," and "individual rights model." Under each subheading, we can explain each in more detail (with perspectives from other scholars). I'd like to give other editors a chance to comment here before making any bold changes to this section of the article, but I certainly don't see any harm in going into more depth about these models. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have marked this request as answered as it technically has been.  Please feel free to make the changes boldly.  Worse someone can do is revert you.  If the IP editor has further concerns they can reopen this request. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies for my delay responding to this issue. I have updated the article per the discussion above, so that the analysis does not rely entirely on Halbrook's assessment of the taxonomy. If you have any other questions or comments, please let me know. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede is too long and biased
Since the 2nd amendment is so short, and since it is so controversial, it seems a better lede would simply state the text of the 2nd amendment, and perhaps have at most a few explanatory sentences. 2604:6000:120A:109:4944:C99D:9AE1:7AB0 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An Introduction is meant to summarize the contents of the article. This article's Introduction does that. The amendment's text is provided in the section immediately following the Introduction, which is standard for a Constitutional amendment article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2nd Amendment is not controversial, except primarily to anti-gun or to gun control advocates. To the 80 million or so (IIRC) legal US gun owners --- not all NRA member btw, there is nothing controversial at all in the 2nd amendment --- and the two most recent Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd prove that. Recall that the 2nd Amendment only matters to actual citizens, voting, taxpaying, of the US. The rest of the world doesn't matter one iota. Apologies in advance if that hurts. Just trying to keep it real here at old (tend towards the liberal interpretation of nearly everything) Wiki ;-) 10stone5 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you state the 2nd Amendment is not controversial when you admit it is controversial to certain groups? The definition of controversial is: “relating to or causing much discussion, disagreement, or argument . Hence, the 2nd Amendment is quite controversial since it’s at the centre of the gun control discussion / disagreement / argument. Furthermore, your belief that “the rest of the world doesn't matter one iota” is quite ironic for the United States have found controversy with many foreign governments’ polices and have used military action to change said policies. AnonymousComment (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead citation link
Citation number 123 which reads: Halbrook, Stephen P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275963316. Retrieved March 19, 2013. Has a link to: https://books.google.com/books?id=0Pt2rd3ww32IC Which is apparently no longer good.

I found a different link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Freedmen_the_Fourteenth_Amendment_and_th.html?id=0Pt2rd3w32IC

Also: https://books.google.com/books?id=0Pt2rd3w32IC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=Freedmen,+the+14th+Amendment,+and+the+Right+to+Bear+Arms,+1866-1876&source=bl&ots=qrUpH4hfqS&sig=YwQgGiF6S020IGHcGFgXrZZv0ps&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjusPreo8_JAhUC-mMKHVGPAicQ6AEIIDAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.159.67 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Which may be a useful replacement? As well as a link to what I think is a section of his book: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/14th-amendment.pdf Which may also be useful in this instance...though I'm not sure by how much.

If either of these is helpful, please consider editing them in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.159.67 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Collective, not individual, right
The operative words of the Second Amendment are in its subject [1], contained in the opening words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The second portion of the amendment grants a right that corresponds to the first: "A well-regulated Militia," which in the 21st century is each state's National Guard [2]: the institution that succeeds the various colonial militia that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

The Amendment's second half makes sense only in the context of its first, subject, portion. Thus, "The people" in this amendment is a collective noun [3], not an individual noun. Consequently, the right applies to the collection of men and women who serve in the regulated institutions that guard each state, not to a person who wishes to be a militia unto himself.

[1] [2] [3]

[1] [2] [3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Njpenning (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , please note that this is not a forum for the discussion of the article's subject. The argument which you are making is already addressed here in the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Njpenning, but that is nonsense...
First of all, I'm not an American, so I don't have any stakes in your 2nd Amendment. The country I live in has quite strict laws against firearm ownership, so overall you can consider me on the side of strict and limited guy laws.

However, I've also watched the debate here, and keep seeing the same discredited points brought up again and again.

And sorry, the 2nd Amendment just does t say what you want it to say. Look at the following:

"To prevent bronchitis and the typical flu, warm outer clothes can be worn in the winter."

Does that mean that you can only wear thick jackets to prevent getting sick? Of course not. You can also wear them because they're stylish or cause you don't like to freeze. Same thing with the 2nd amendment. The latter part isn't dependent on the first part.

Needs updating
12/9/2015: "In a major defeat for the National Rifle Association, the Supreme Court decided this week not to take up a challenge to one of the toughest gun-control statutes in America, a law on the books in Highland Park, Illinois. ...These fundamentalist gun-rights arguments only found sympathy with Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. ...The Supreme Court let stand an earlier ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that found a community's right to protect itself from gun violence trumps a fundamentalist reading of the Second Amendment. In short, the circuit court ruled that the individual right to bear arms — discovered by the Supreme Court in its 2008 Heller decision — is not nearly as absolute as the NRA would have America believe. ...Inaction by the Supreme Court is not as definitive as a new ruling on guns, of course. And it remains possible that the Court is waiting for a split among the appellate courts to trigger a new intervention on gun rights. But McLively of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says the fact that only Thomas and Scalia signed onto a dissent "sends a pretty strong message that there's not five justices who think this is a violation of the Second Amendment." "We hope that this emboldens communities to take action," McLively says. "There is not the constitutional issue the gun lobby would have them believe."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcnblues (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A denial of certiorari is not the same as affirming the lower court's decision; it only means the Supreme Court decided to not rule on the case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

White space
Hi SMP0328, regarding this revert, could you please describe where you see white space? I don't see it, so could you also describe what kind of computer you are using? I would like to go to a similar computer to see if I can fix the white space problem. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm using Windows 10. My browsers are Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer 11. In both browsers the white space was present after the Text section. What operating system and browsers do you use? SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have Windows 8.1 and I normally use Mozilla Firefox. But I also have Internet Explorer, and when I look at the archived version of this article I don't see any white space immediately before the "Pre-Constitution background" section header. Can you see a way to eliminate the white space that you see, without eliminating the new image? I have tried moving up the image and removing the "Clear" code, so hopefully that will work for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now there's no white space. I decreased the size of the image from 2000px to 650px, because it looked oversized. At 650px, all the words can be seen without needing to scroll to the right. Good job. SMP0328. (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to know that worked. However, I cannot read the image at 650px, and I also still have to scroll to the right in order to see the whole thing.  So, I will increase the size until it's legible.  There are lots of images at Wikipedia where you have to scroll to the right.  See, for example, Panoramic View of King George's Sound, Part of the Colony of Swan River.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/anarchy.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081018234137/http://www.gunlawsuits.org:80/defend/second/articles/anarchy.php to http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/anarchy.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannical government
In this wiki entry, a reference to "deterring tyrannical government" was given as a reason for the Founders proposing the Amendment. However, the source cited contradicted this fact. Here is the source originally cited:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1

But if you read that source, it has this to say on the matter:

"[T]he Second Amendment does not sanction armed revolt by the citizenry."

And also:

"It is difficult, nonetheless, to find support in the Constitution for the notion that the Second Amendment is a license for the people to resist and triumph over government at any level by means of force and violence. To the contrary, the Constitution is replete with provisions intended to quell uprisings."

Therefore, I have taken out the phrase unless better evidence can be provided to support the assertion. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is just one opinion. I note that it fails to mention that Americans had a legally protected right to keep and bear arms even before the revolution. TFD (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored that material. The source outlines what is the basis for the belief that the Second Amendment is meant to protect a right to armed resistance to a tyrannical government. That's the usefulness of the source, even if the author of the source material disagrees with the resisting tyranny theory of the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have once again taken this material out. I have re-read the cited source and it most definitely does not "outline what is the basis for the belief that the Second Amendment is meant to protect a right to armed resistance to a tyrannical government." It is a law journal article that explores whether or not there is any basis in fact for the "resistance to tyranny" theory -- which the article calls the "Insurrectionary Theory". In its conclusion it most decidedly concludes that no, there is no basis in fact for the "Insurrectionary Theory".


 * Here it is in the "Introduction" section of the article:


 * "Such beliefs highlight what is perhaps the most intriguing argument supporting the right to bear arms, what might be called the "insurrectionary" theory of the Second Amendment. Simply stated, the proposition holds that the possession of firearms by individuals serves as the ultimate check on the power of government. The concept postulates that the Second Amendment was intended to provide the means by which the people, as a last resort, could rise in armed revolt against tyrannical authorities."


 * Here is the "Conclusion" in its entirety, which rejects entirely the theory outlined in the "Introduction" section:


 * "No system of government can allow for its own demise by violent overthrow. While a theoretical basis for the Second Amendment might guarantee access to firearms by other than the professional armies of the federal govemment, the Second Amendment does not sanction armed revolt by the citizenry. That right exists, if at all, only when the Constitution's system for peaceful change ceases to function; it does not arise where a group-armed or otherwisesimply dislikes or disagrees with a particular government decision or policy. Furthermore, possession of small arms, including assault-type weapons, does not meaningfully check the combat power of advanced military establishments like those of the United States. To suggest that civilians equipped with Second Amendment-type weapons are any match for modem security forces invites murderous confrontations that armed civilians will inevitably lose. Military action today is a complex blend of intricate tactics, high-tech communication systems, and powerful weaponry far beyond the wildest imagination of the Framers.'97 Paradoxically, it is the very complexity of modem warfare that may provide the defense against tyranny that the Framers hoped firearms would produce. The sophistication of today's equipment and soldiers ensures that armed amateurs cannot prevail against a determined modem force; that same sophistication militates against such a force becoming, especially in the United States, a tool of despotism. Modem militaries are no longer manned by the uneducated and blindlyobedient dregs of society that populated the standing armies of the Framers' era. Warfighting in the late twentieth century demands an independent-thinking, even cosmopolitan force. For example, the proliferation of computer-supported weapons and information systems requires increasingly educated and intelligent soldiers capable, even at low levels, of making and communicating key decisions. This leads one analyst to observe that "[a] smart, educated, coordinated military team in a totalitarian regime is a true oxymoron.


 * "Nevertheless, the Framers' teaching remains a valid one: be vigilant. Though it is doubtful that anyone in today's armed forces harbors any thoughts of usurping power, ensuring firm civilian control of the military remains of vital importance. But to do that effectively does not require civilians keeping and bearing arms. Rather, it demands strengthening the institutions expected to exercise civilian control and limiting the military's involvement in other than traditional warfighting activities.'99 Removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable as some have suggested.2°° Instead, it should be subject to the same balancing test that has been successfully used in reconciling conflicting interests with respect to other amendments.20 Most of the focus of Second Amendment debate relates to the wisdom of using firearms as a means of crime control.2 2 It may be that a court pondering a gun control measure and considering the Framers' intent will conclude that given the de minimis combat capability of armed civilians, the aim of resisting government tyranny is outweighed by society's interest in resisting the tyranny imposed by the criminal element of the armed citizenry. This methodology, while clearly displeasing to Second Amendment absolutists, will also not satisfy gun control advocates because the approach requires case-by-case analyses of each gun control measure. Repealing the Second Amendment would not end constitutional arguments over gun control.2 "3 But more fundamentally, the Constitution has proven itself to be a remarkably prescient and dynamic document-a balancing of competing interests today may be upset by tomorrow's circumstances. The Second Amendment, standing as it does for the quintessential American virtue of individual responsibility, still serves as an important reminder of the Framers' healthy suspicion of governmental power. In the final analysis, that may be its most meaningful legacy."


 * If there is something I am missing from the article, please cite it specifically. Otherwise, a different source needs to be used to support the "deterring tyrannical government" assertion so that it can remain as part of the Wiki entry. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added an additional source. Please let me know if it satisfies your concerns. SMP0328. (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Scholars may disagree and the fact that one of them argues that a widely held theory is invalid does not mean we can take his or her word for it. we need to follow weight providing balance to different views according to how they are received in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor is right that the source does not back the statement. They are being a pedantic waste of time in that they well know such a statement is easily sourcable. Now, there is an argument that such a statement should not be in wiki voice, but needs to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but there are a nearly infinite number of sources to back this statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

commas?
aren't there commas in the text that are missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.114.80 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are several versions of the text, with different punctuation in different places. These are discussed in some detail in the article. If you think there is a strong argument to be made that a different version than the ratified version, and have sources to back up that argument, I'm sure it would get listened to, but I think you are unlikely to convince everyone. Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Debate over importance of 1st and 3rd commas?
According to this discussion many years ago, there is no reference that shows anyone thinks the presence or absence of the first or third commas affects the interpretation. Therefore, sentences referring to a debate about their effect on meaning were removed. It seems that this claim has been reinstated: "The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause". However, I still cannot find any reference to support the existence of a debate of meaning that turns on whether those commas or capital letters are there. It didn't come up in any of the Heller amicus briefs, oral argument, or opinion. The only brief that mentions commas at all (Linguists' Brief), says "The Amendment’s first and third commas signal a pause for breath and can be omitted without affecting the meaning". I can't find anyone that contests this position. Of course, debate exists about which is the "correct" version, but I can't find any debate about meaning that turns on something that differs between the versions. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

History of the suppression of the Scottish militia in the 18th century
(earlier, less well-thought-out comments on this matter deleted)

I think the history of the suppression of the Scots militia after the Acts of Union is pretty important and wish my short note on it had survived. It's a pretty amazing history. The Scottish Militia Bill of 1707, which would have restored the Scots right to participate in the militia, was vetoed by Queen Anne, in the last royal veto in British history. Thereafter, the Jacobite Risings of 1715 and 1746 persuaded Parliament to pass the 1716 Disarming Act and then the 1746 Act of Proscription, which intensified penalties and even forbade the wearing of "highland dress." (Which sounds very odd, but consider the suppression of gang colors in US schools.)

The relevance to the USA is set out by Konig  it comes through | Fletcher of Saltoun himself, who  Jefferson thought well of, and James Burgh, who was quoted by Franklin and who corresponded with John Adams. To sum up a fairly complex history, the suppression of the Scottish militias and weapons ownership influenced the writing of the Second Amendment, and the phrase "well-regulated militia" is a direct reference to that history.

Raven Onthill (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the Hidden History is a good, reliable source for this. But the other, the John Gray Centre, did not appear to be a reliable source. If you can find a better one that I would support reinsertion. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, as I am reviewing the John Gray Centre, I am reconsidering. I am doing some digging to see if this is an acceptable source for historical events. It may very well be. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, .orgs rarely meet requirements for reliable sourcing, but in this instant, there does appear to be some publishing oversight, as well as more in-depth research than typical .orgs. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What's your take on Konig?  For the moment, there's a version online at [| The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context…] so you can take a look, though I don't know how long that copy will last. Raven Onthill (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, [| Konig's web page]. He's one of the few academics (maybe the only) who seems to have read Fletcher, which quite surprised me. With all the hoo-ing and ha-ing this subject has attracted I am surprised that more academics have not gone back and reviewed the original sources.Raven Onthill (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It was in [|| Fletcher of Saltoun] in 1698, and I think it belongs in this article. (And, yes, maybe not the first. But can anyone cite an earlier one?)

The text is available free, online, at the original publisher; really don't understand why that was removed.

Raven Onthill (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * These appear to be in good order as far as sourcing. I think your best bet is to add back the content, albeit in smaller paragraphs and cite this discussion. Because even though these sources seem to check out, there is still a question of "weight" for a particular piece of content. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think the people who first coined and used the phrase "well-regulated militia," what they thought about the miltia and how it made its way into the thought of the US Founders carries some weight and I'll try to make that clear in my next submission.  The 18th-century Scottish experience with the militia right, and then the disarmament and cultural genocide of the Highland Scots, seems to me in some sense relevant, but it is probably too big for this article and perhaps too big for Wikipedia.  There is, I have just found, an obscure book on it (Robertson, John. 1985. The Scottish enlightenment and the militia issue. Edinburgh: J. Donald.)  No idea of the quality of the work, or if the author addresses the US connection.  Maybe I'll make some time to visit the nearest big reference library and see if they have a copy. Raven Onthill (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That is an obscure interpretation and you would have to show that it has received wider coverage to include. It was widely assumed in the 18th century that the right to keep and bear arms existed in English common law and was protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and applied to the English colonies.  Both the U.S. and states incorporated the rights protected by the Bill of Rights into their constitutions.  The actual wording in that act is, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law...."  Scotland has a similar clause in the Claim of Right 1689 c. 28, "That the Dissarming of protestants and Imploying papists in the places of greatest trust both Civil and military the thrusting out protestants to make roome for papists and the intrusting papists with the forts and magazines of the Kingdome are Contrary to Law,,,."  TFD (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. The right was taken away from the Scots when Great Britain was formed by the Acts of Union 1707.  The bill to restore it, the Scottish Militia Bill, was the last bill vetoed by the Crown in the UK.  There followed a famous near-century of debate and rebellion, including the Jacobite Risings of 1715 and 1745, famed in song and story.  That history is not at all obscure!  It came into US political thought through figures like Fletcher who  Jefferson thought well of  and James Burgh, who was read by John Adams, among others.  That's a bit more obscure, but scholars of the period are aware of it.  I'll try to marshall some of this material into a short contribution "soon."  Today, I am hoping do some research. Raven Onthill (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your point. Parliament had no power to repeal the Bill of Rights 1689 in the United States in 1789, when the 2nd amendment was enacted, because it had lost that power upon American independence.  Isn't it more likely that the Americans wanted the written American constitution to protect the same rights that the unwritten English constitution did? Are you saying the 2nd amendment comes from the Scottish Claim of Right, not the English Bill of Rights?  That would seem strange, since the English law applied to the colonies and, like all pre-Revolutionary laws, remained in force after the Revolution, unless repealed.  TFD (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just so. That was one of the motivations of the Revolution.  And so the Americans found that, in the eyes of the Crown, they were British subjects but not English and they had the example of Scotland to show how the English crown treated their non-English subjects.  There were parallels between the English treatment of the Scots and the English treatment of the  American colonists, the Americans were well aware of them, and took up some of the Scots views.  (This is Konig's point.)  When the Scots James Burgh's *Political Disinquisitions* was published in Philadelphia, the publication was sponsored by George Washington, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, among others. Etc., etc.  Hopefully I'll be able to answer more of these objections in a more finished text with cites.  The other thing I want to point out is that it appears that the phrase "well regulated militia" was first used in the Scots militia literature and then Burgh picked it up.  (I have not found the phrase in any sources earlier than Fletcher's 1698 *A Discourse of Government relating to Militias*.)  This bears on the interpretation of the phrase; Fletcher and Burgh said what they meant by it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven Onthill (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016
"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." is the first sentence and should be changed to

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in conjunction with the maintenance of a well-regulated state militia...."

This is in keeping with the actual language and history of the amendment rather than reducing it to an ambiguous, sound bite in the first wikipedia sentence. This will further invite people to read more of the entry instead of stopping there and thinking they understand the amendment without further study.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

GrammarPip (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

GrammarPip (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  This is a highly controversial topic and I think it should stay how it is. It's already mentioned in the lead paragraph and it's most well known as protecting the right to bear arms. If you insist on changing it, though, please seek consensus on the talk page (maybe through RfC). st170e talk  21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is directly contrary to the Heller ruling, this is a non-starter. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016
In the Text portion of the website there is a picture provided that shows the original text of the 2nd Amendment. Afterwards it then states the amendment in text on the website. However it is missing the first comma which comes after the word militia which can be identified in the following image in this link http://i.imgur.com/3XqRKsm.png. This image was copied directly from the one used on the website.

To compare here is the image on your website without the circle added https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg/1500px-SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg.

The sentence reads "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."

The sentence should say, "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.".

While this may be a slight grammatical error the sentence without this comma means something completely different. Without the comma the second amendment would seem to be made up of 2 separate clauses however that is not the case. With the comma the part stating "being necessary to the security of a free state" is an anecdote to the reasoning of this amendment with one singular clause.

My Apologies I made a terrible blunder and saw the Version passed by Congress first. However I believe that maybe a revision of the formatting of this part of the cite could be changed. The structure of this part of the cite is very odd and draws the users attention towards the very bottom of this section. That is how I overlooked this and it could reason that others would as well. ThatOtherGuy99 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Caetano v. Massachusetts
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

Can we define what "bearable arms" includes in: "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"? Ottowolff (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ottowolff
 * Answered here: Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Request change for this and all articles about the US Constitution
Regarding the first sentence of the article: properly understood and correctly stated, no amendment protects rights. Rather, the Constitution itself, and all of its amendments, restrict government action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusateri49 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many parts of the Constitution restrict government action. For example, the Presidential veto restricts the Congress's ability to enact legislation. Constitutional rights are a type of restriction on governmental action. Articles about such rights should clearly describe the restriction on governmental action at issue. SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-federalist vs. federalist, i.e. state's rights vs. federal rights
I believe the section on ratification debates does not sufficiently set the scene of the vicious polarized debate over ratification of the constitution, particularly in ratification conventions in Virginia and New York, which were the tipping point. This is a point strongly emphasized in histories which I would suggest to cite in the article. According to these sources, the Bill of Rights was demanded by foes of the constitution as a precondition for ratification, as Alexander Hamilton led the federalist fight for ratification in the battleground state of New York (see pp. 261 in "Alexander Hamilton", Chernow). Stevens' dissent in Heller emphasizes a central point that the amendment "was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States." To give fair historical context to this view, held by four of the justices, this article should add detail from historical sources to the effect that:

- the ratification was a very close and hard-fought protracted political battle over many months, hinging on Virginia, New York and New Hampshire.

- the two sides were very organized, with the opposition Anti-federalists supporting fundamentally a position of states' rights over federal rights, their central objection being that the constitution unnecessarily strengthened the federal government over the states when compared to the much weaker central government then in existence under the articles of confederation.

- the bill of rights was offered as a concession to the anti-federalists to protect states' rights to secure their vote for the constitution

- note that the 2nd amendment, as interpreted by stevens, is primarily a concession to uphold states' rights over federal rights

- that per Stevens interpretation, a pro-states right position gives the states strong rights to pass legislation without federal interference

- to cite historical sources that political considerations of the polarized fight over states rights were the driving force in the debate and negotiation within the ratification conventions and congress over wording of the bill of rights.

While it is not critical to the article, I'd advocate as a point of interest, to make the article more engaging reading, to reference sources that note the irony that a pro-states rights position on the second amendment favors allowing states to pass legislation on guns, and an anti-states rights position on the second amendment asserts federal authority to prohibit states from making their own choices on gun legislation. (The irony lying in the fact that states rights is traditionally a conservative cause.)


 * While each of your points may have merit (depending on sourcing) stringing them together like that is WP:SYNTH unless you have a source making that entire argument. Steven's interpretation in particular carries no legal weight as it is a dissent. That general viewpoint (a collective state right) was explicitly rejected by the majority. But even still we cover that POV (indeed, extensively quoting Stevens) in the article already Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution . To put additional WP:WEIGHT on the losing argument would be WP:UNDUE. Additionally your argument for the bill of rights as a whole to be considered an anti-federalist bargaining chip makes no sense for the vast majority of the amendments, which clearly describe and protect individual rights, not a preservation of state power. That interpretation (individual) has been repeatedly reinforced as each amendment was incorporated against the states. Also, please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes to the end of your comments. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would cite Federalist paper 84, Hamilton, the preeminent Federalist, argues the Bill of Rights is superfluous: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" This Federalist viewpoint (later overruled) was that the Constitution already sufficiently guaranteed rights as the power to abridge these rights were not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Anti-federalists demanded more explicit protections against Federal power. All of this highly political argument followed the axis of strengthening federal power versus strengthening restrictions on federal power (and leaving that power to the states). I agree that its questionable whether anti-federalists more strongly sought protection of states rights versus individual rights in the 2nd amendment, per Stevens argument, but I would assert it's a historical fact that the Bill of Rights was in fact a bargaining chip yielded to foes of the constituion in the ratification battle.

I would appreciate further detail on the UNDUE weight considerations; specifically is it our explicit understanding that when the supreme court makes a ruling the balance of page-space of this article should change accordingly, and if so, should that split be 5/4 or should that split be, for example 90/10 since only the majority opinion carries? I only make this point to say that Stevens is a gifted legal scholar (as is scalia), so to me is a very credible source for analysis, and I believe a great deal of research went into that argument. So, I'm not convinced that the layout of historical/legal arguments for hotly debated interpretations within a Wikipedia article should leap to a different distribution of page space (i.e. 10/90 back when Miller held precedent and 90/10 now that Heller has carried by 5/4). To me the two sides should still carry comparable page space. THank you again for taking the time to make your thoughtful and considerate response. 108.51.128.84 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Heller does not contradict Miller, so the swing is not as extreme as you indicate, but at a high level yes. Across all of wikipedia, the most current understanding is given the most weight, with prior understandings given weight as appropriate to document the historical flow. Stevens is a notable minority viewpoint, and we should cover it. We do cover it. But there have now been multiple SCOTUS rulings which confirm Heller, Steven's viewpoint has well and truly lost at this point (which does not rule out the possibility that it will win later, but thats unlikely, especially with Trump). As a more general rule, WP:WEIGHT dictates that we should cover various viewpoints in proportion to the amount of coverage (especially scholarly coverage) they have gotten. Since Heller, which viewpoint do you think has gotten more ink? ResultingConstant (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the lively discussion. I would summarize my position as this: I believe the second amendment is a politically sensitive topic. This would explain its continuing designation as a semi-protected article. I believe the reason it is politically sensitive topic is because there are two differing sides on how to interpret the meaning of the words, and that both political sides claim aspects of the history of the amendment's creators to defend their side of the argument. I would also say that it was a controversial topic in 2008 and it is still a controversial topic in 2017. I would therefore argue that a neutral point of view is still called for.

In my view, in 2008, all justices and their clerks had access to essentially the same historical and legal record as we do today, and the court was split politically on how to interpret the history along similar lines that different contributors to this wikipedia article are split. Both Scalia and Stevens looked at the same history and read it different ways. Per SCOTUS history since Bush v. Gore especially, the two opinions are adversarial and neither side makes much effort to present counter-evidence in their review of history, as each can rely on the other side to do so. In my personal, opinion, Stevens' argument (and the many law articles commenting on it) is an excellent summary of the amendments' history along which to structure an article representing that side's view. To me, the 5/4 decision and others since are reflective of political numbers on the courts and do not effect the underlying history that occurred before 2008 nor the validity of both sides' underlying legal interpretation of the history.

To the argument that 2008 and subsequent are now precedent and have thus "won" the argument, I would quote Stevens' 2008 dissent:"Since our decision in Miller (1939), hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there... Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself,... would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.”

In Stevens' view, the majority in 2008 broke from precedent and formulated a new reading of the amendment. I would assert that this issue is likely to be further re-interpreted as the political balance in the SCOTUS may change at some point in the future, and that the ideological question is still contested and not "settled". Therefore the wikipedia article should still give equal or 5/4 or similar coverage of both viewpoints, and so I think for the pro-gun side to claim 90% of the page space to the historical underpinnings of the arguments is a politically-influenced "overreach" in its interpretation of the guidelines and not in the spirit of neutral-point-of-view.

Thank you again. (I feel a bit Hamiltonian that my answers keep getting more and more long-winded, my apologies.) 108.51.128.84 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The states' desire to keep the new federal government from usurping control of militias was a driving force behind the 2nd Amendment. While an individual right may be derived from a variety of sources, the militia issue should not be hidden. It's why the Amendment mentions militias. I was shocked to learn that it is not generally recognized that the state/federal power struggle was integral to the original debate. It's a really basic fact, like how fear of indeterminate arrest lead to habeas corpus. BillHaywood (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You would need sources specifically about the Second Amendment rather than the bill of rights in general. There was no controversy about whether these rights existed, merely whether they should be protected.  At the time, they did not know that the courts would be used to protect them.  And there was very little discussion of the Second Amendment.  Also, we should rely on legal historians to determine what the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the Second Amendment were.  All that a majority of Supreme Court judges tells us is how legislation will be interpreted in the courts.  TFD (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I point out that some people, perhaps even well meaning educated people are using terms loosely that had different common usage then than now, and in some cases the written legal definition is different than the common usage now.

Militia- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

"10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) US Code Notes prev | next (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

This law definining the militia has been on the books in almost this exact form since the 1790s.

"Well Regulated" http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen 

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Montestruc (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional point.

Commonly people make anachronistic assumptions about how societies worked in the past, presuming that modern institutions existed them, that are often simply factually wrong. Example, our modern ideas about police and public prosecutors.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html

"Part I: The Private Prosecution of Crime

England in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French.

Under English law, any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In practice, the prosecutor was usually the victim. It was up to him to file charges with the local magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury, and, if the grand jury found a true bill, provide evidence for the trial."

My point being that any modern reading of the history of that period and the actual intended meaning of the constitution must, for accuracy dispense with anachronistic assumptions.

The American colonies were if anything less civilized and modern than England. All citiens were the militia, all citizens had the duty to enforce the law, only "cowards" and "criminals" failed to do there duty to uphold the law. This is why the battle of Lexington & Concord took place, all of the townsmen and farmers in the area acted as if they were police officers and the British Regulars had just murdered several villagers in Lexington and they were committing a large scale armed robbery in Concord. This may help you wrap your mind around what was happening.

Montestruc (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific suggestions (e.g., what edits) as to how this WP article can be improved. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The US v. Cruikshank case should be noted as that all aspects of that case have been overruled by subsiquent SCOTUS rulings, that the whole basis of the case was in effect ruling in favor of southern white supremacists who had murdered ~ 150 black militia attempting to defend election results at a courthouse in rural Louisiana in order to overturn the election.

Again - US v Cruikshank was in support of white supremacists who murdered ~ 150 black militia freedmen trying to defend their right to vote and the validity of their ballots. This would give reasonable and proper context to later claims to the validity of US v Cruikshank. Montestruc (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the US v Cruikshank article for ref. Montestruc (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition of militia in federal law should be explicitly cited as that is a matter of federal law and has been since the 1790 and is frequently misinterpreted as it appears to be in this article. Montestruc (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Commonly the US supreme court looks for the intentions Congress had in 1791, the present court's interpretation of the intentions of Congress are now a longer read than the constitution itself. In 2008 a court justice commented "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. That's the difficulty in with the concept that the 2nd is the courts source for all gun rights. In 1791 things like "for the purpose of killing game" was a perfectly lawful use of arms in every state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a militia weren't meant to be the only rights, rather they were three fundamental rights added to other accepted purposes of the time (like hunting).

Today the "rights of the people" trip over things that aren't constitutional rights, but are commonly legal, killing game, defense against animals, defending one's home, those weren't mentioned. When suggesting likely unlawful behavior like taking a gun to work or pointing guns at each other, then we trip over "right to bear arms" anywhere, for whatever purpose, thinking that's what the 2nd intended.

There is lots of focus on the present laws but I'd like to add more about the individual congressmen and what present day historians have to say about that time. In particular I'd like to know what was accepted in 1790, could you carry a gun in Congress? Could you shoot deer in the city? Had anything changed in the US compared to the old world, England, Spain, France? And maybe most of all why didn't an important topic like self defense not deserve mention? Dougmcdonell (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Court also looks to 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. That amendment was held in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) to apply the Second Amendment to the States. When Congress debated whether to pass the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Amendment was cited as protecting an individual right. SMP0328. (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, the part in "McDonald v. City of Chicago" where the court says “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” seems really out of place regarding the 2nd. "defense" only appears in the context of defending the nation. I think there was WP:POV and WP:RELIABLE taking place over at the courthouse, they just made that up. Also I'd be interested in the motive to even mention self-defense as the challenges to Chicago were clearly about violating the right to keep arms:

Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition Prohibit the registration of handguns Mandate that guns be re-registered annually Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses


 * I think the 14th is awesome, but using it to protect the 2nd from state interference with self-defense makes no sense when self-defense does not appear in the constitution or the amendments. I'd like to draw a bright line between the original intent of the authors and congress 200 years ago(the article topic) and add-ons being inferred over the years by opinions from the supreme court addressing modern challenges. So 200 years ago, the reasons why you keep arms and whether you chose pistols or rifles wasn't even a local topic much less a federal one, it wasn't worth one word in the Constitution to either restrict arms ownership or on the other side of the coin, to grant any federal right to hunting, defense, vigilantes, rebellion, owning your own warship, etc. Thoughts? Dougmcdonell (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "the right of the People"
The last paragraph of this section, while supplying sources, sounds like opining, which compromises the integrity of the page. IIRC, this should be flagged/corrected.73.90.84.55 (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is full of opinions, as are vast swaths of Wikipedia. Opinions don't compromise the integrity of the article, not if they are given appropriate - thus not undue - weight. It's a single sentence, noting opinions as presented by reliable sources. What flag or correction would you suggest? Anastrophe (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence should probably be updated to conform with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV But other than that its fine, per WP:YESPOV. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Table
Where is the table of contents? Why does this talk page not have a table of contents, as is usual? Benjamin (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Look above, to the archives section. On a lot of the more "controversial" pages, for some odd reason, editors tend to quickly move to strike commentary by archiving it as quickly as possible. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's what happens regardless. So if you are wondering about previous talk related to this article, you have to click through those archive sections. 68.13.136.247 (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

English background
"The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments."

There is a citation needed for this oft-asserted, but fanciful, statement. An English-law source would be more convincing.Ttocserp 14:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Intent of framers per Declaration of Independence
The material used in the article to show how the Declaration of Independence might reveal the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd amendment (in section 2.2) is questionable and rather weak. "Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government")..." An individual right to armed insurrection? Like a one man revolution? Here is a better quote from the Declaration, which mentions "the People", not individuals: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." or "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Article is locked so I can't fix this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Typo or just bad grammar?
Please search the article for the phrase "Congress...Congress". Did the author intend this? It appears to be an incomplete sentence. Neilrieck (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 February 2018
Entry re Teixeira v. County of Alameda, under After Heller, mistates the case. Someone should review and correct it. Lexjuris (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit requests require the specific change to be proposed. Could you elaborate on what you think the misstatement is, and what a proper statement would be? ResultingConstant (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The current entry on Teixeira v. County of Almameda cites a 3-panel ruling of the 9th circuit in 2016, but fails to mention that the ruling was overruled in 2017 by the same court sitting “en banc”. Recommendation: Teixeira v. County of Almameda No. 13-17132 (en banc, October 10, 2017), reviewied a county ordinance that prohibited firearm sales near residentially zoned districts, schools, day-care centers, other firearm retailers and liquor stores. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled a three judge panel (which had ruled that the Second Amendment independently protects the sale of firearms), and ruled that "the Second Amendment does not confer a freestanding right to sell firearms". See opinion pp 34-41. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf Lexjuris (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2018
Delete "deterring tyrannical government;[59]" under the heading "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution".

Delete Reference #59, "Elder, Larry (July 3, 2008). "Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms?' Part 1". Human Events. Retrieved May 14, 2016."

JUSTIFICATION:

This is a partisan political talking point. The reference is a partisan article written by a partisan politcal pundit, published on a partisan website.

Regarding the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The Constitution explicitly states what militias do: they make sure the laws are followed, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. There is not a provision to deter a tyrannical government. The U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws, such as the Militia Act of 1792, provided for militias to protect the government, not to threaten it. Danny.Bailey (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Seems like WP:OR. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  08:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

False Statement
The right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 - this is simply not true The right of the white people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791. Please stop lying and spreading falsehoods. Is this Wikipedia or Whitipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bill of Rights applied to all U.S. citizens, including free Black people, when it was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No. It did not. Free Blacks were not permitted in most states. That is an outright lie. Scottprovost (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Eight states were in the process of abolishing slavery (it is also true that one did not complete the process until 1865), and had no objection to manumitted blacks. Even slave states had few restrictions. Virginia changed her mind and required newly freed slaves to leave in six months in 1807, but she had no such requirement in 1791 - and it was not retrospective in 1807; Richard Randolph died in 1796, freeing all his slaves, and they remained in Virginia until now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The bill of rights applied to all citizens regarding FEDERAL laws. Each amendment was incorporated against the states at different times. For the 2nd that wasn't until McDonald/Heller. And in any case, even it had applied from the start there are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional when finally fought. The fact that such unconstitutional laws existed does not change the amendment. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The False statement made by Wikipedia refers to the the "right of people". You assertion that slaves are not people is false. No amendment ever granted any right to people. That is the lie. Remove the lie immediately or surrender not for profit status as in violation of federal civil right law.Scottprovost (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on WP:THREAT ResultingConstant (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The actual words of the 2nd Amendment appear too late in the article
Starting this article with the Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is unfair to the actual wording of the Amendment. The words of the Second Amendment need to appear first and foremost. The reader needs to know how the document actually reads, before those words can be characterized, defined, or interpreted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington-Art-Movement (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is using the standard format for an article: an Introduction summarizing the body of the article, followed by a Text section containing the exact wording of the amendment. Thus, putting the amendment's wording in the Introduction is redundant. As for the meaning of the amendment, we have to go by the official interpretation. The official interpretation of any part of the Constitution is provided by the U.S. Supreme Court. To have individual editors put in their interpretations of amendment would lead to confusion, as different editors would add different interpretations. This would be very harmful to such an article, even if reliable sources were used. This isn't to say that criticisms of the official interpretation aren't allowed, but such criticisms would still recognized the official interpretation as the current meaning of the amendment even while saying the amendment was meant to have a different meaning. In this case, the official meaning of the Second Amendment is that it protects a limited individual right to keep and bear arms and so the Introduction should reflect that. SMP0328. (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's absurd. A Wikipedia entry is not a legal document. It is an encyclopedic article, and one that's of potential interest to the entire world, inasmuch as it can read English. The legally binding interpretation by the US Supreme Court compels solely and exclusively US legal application. It neither compels historiography, as evidenced by several monographies shredding the reasoning of the Supreme Court, nor does it compel anyone not affected by the US Constitution, such as someone in the UK. To suggest that academic research should be relegated to "also ran" and be little more than a footnote in an encyclopedic article is ridiculous and renders any claims to encyclopedic character absurd. --91.67.245.87 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Standard format for an article would talk about an amendment that was passed when it was passed and what it meant when it was passed. Then what became of it later. Pretending that 1700's supreme court imposed it on all men is simply a fabrication. The right to Bear Arms and the Right to own slaves are joined. No arms no slaves. The reason the union with Great Britten had to eb disolved was because the cout in England struck down slavery in 1772 [Somerset v Stewart] and to keep slavery we must be independent of Britten. Scottprovost (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2018
The first sentence under "Goverment tyranny" should change the current "... during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption ..." to "... during the Revolutionary period was concernED about political corruption ..." Hjcrabtree (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * support as a minor grammar fix. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. SMP0328. (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Include relatively modern usage of "well-regulated"
There is some dispute in popular culture about what "well-regulated" means. Many insist it means legislative regulations. And I don't think the USSC's opinion matters much to them. Frank Baum, author of The Wizard of Oz, used "well-regulated" in his American Fairy Tales in "The Box of Robbers" - "Around the walls were rows of boxes and trunks, piles of old carpeting, pieces of damaged furniture, bundles of discarded clothing and other odds and ends of more or less value. Every well-regulated house has an attic of this sort, so I need not describe it". You can confirm by downloading the free Kindle version. I think this example could be included in the "Well-regulated militia" section to show the modern legislative assumption is inaccurate and incorrect. Ludwig61 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article makes a claim that "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained", and then cites the Merkel article. If you read the citation itself, Merkel says the exact opposite - that the claimed interpretation is one of Scalia's many falsehoods, and that "regulated" meant the same thing in 17th Century English (after all, English was quite modern at that point) as it does today - subject to rules. This outright lie in favor of right-wing propaganda is appalling. 66.194.173.62 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Federal law - 10 USC 331 b2 states that almost all men between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia. They, we, can be called up at any time to fight foreign enemies or rebellious states/state. According to the Constitution and current law men between 17 and 45 are, whether in the Armed forces or National Guard or required to serve under penalty of law to attack even other Americans - better watch our manners. 2601:181:8301:4510:3823:8EE6:5C01:22AE (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

citation #61
this is a pretty apocryphal belief among certain circles in the USA. is there a more robust citation available than an unsourced, uncited article written by a gun proponent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Commas
In the "Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights" section the article states "An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[121]" Citing the Journal.

The final version in this section is presented as:

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.[122]"

I am looking at the high resolution image [34] that shows the comma before "shall not be"

This is also supported on page 2 of Scalia's Opinion.[39]

How can we better illustrated this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philfromwaterbury (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing under "See Also" re. state constitution analogs to federal constitution 2nd A
I'm looking for a Wiki entry/page re. state constitutions' analogs (and states that don't have such) to the federal BoR 2nd A RKBA. I think such would be worthwhile. It would have entries for all 50 states + D.C. (territories too?) Each entry would have brief history of it, date of passage, compare/contrast with federal 2nd A.

Just an idea/suggestion for anyone with the skills, knowledge, time and desire to do such. Phantom in ca (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hubert Humphrey quote
In the section, "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution", one of the "purposes" of the right to bear arms was listed as "deterring tryannical government" and linked to an opinion web site, which in turn gave an unattributed quote to a "prominent 20th Century Democrat".

I tracked down the actual source of the quote, which is page 4 of Guns magazine from February 1960, where the magazine seems to have written to various members of Congress and received letters back on their opinions of the Second Amendment. The quote comes from Senator Hubert Humphrey's response to the magazine. I re-worded it to "safeguarding against tyrannical government" because that is Humphrey's actual quote, and has a slightly different meaning than "deterring tyrannical government". (A basement is a safeguard against a tornado, but doesn't deter it, for example.)

But the bigger issue with this quote is that it comes from February 1960 from Hubert Humphrey, whereas this section of the wiki is asserting that this is how "Early English settlers in America viewed" the purpose of keeping and bearing arms. Nowhere in the full quote does Humphrey make that assertion:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

This quote is clearly Humphrey's view in 1960 of the Second Amendment, and not the view of "early English settlers in America". So a better quote should be found to back up this assertion in this wiki entry, or else this assertion should be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor of awesometown (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Section: "Meaning of 'the right of the People'"
This should be attributed, as it is an interpretation; it should not be given in Wikipedia's voice. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it presents D.C. v. Heller as the only interpretation of the amendment and the valid historical analysis. Ironically it doesn't even accurately represent that decision. If you want to re-write it, I would not object. TFD (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Every article about a Constitutional amendment attributes the amendment's meaning to Supreme Court decisions interpreting that amendment. Only regarding the Second Amendment is this practice questioned. Also, do not rewrite the article without receiving a consensus on this talk page for such a rewrite. SMP0328. (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I was referring specifically to the last sentence of this section. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not true. Legal scholars are divided on whether the Bill of Rights protects pornography, abortion and hate speech. In any case, weight requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." That does not mean that in a 5-4 decision, the minority receives no coverage. Also, as I pointed out, the editors of this article are wholly ignorant of the D.C. v. Heller decision, implying for example that it relied on natural rights. TFD (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence? "There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms' instead of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'."Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's an example. While Scalia may have made that argument, it is still only an opinion. TFD (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be a mistake to treat the Supreme Court's ruling as just another "opinion". Heller is part of the official interpretation of the Second Amendment. Other people have contrary interpretations, but what the Supreme Court's "opinion" is the legally binding interpretation. The article reflects what the Court said in Heller and other cases. The Court referred to natural rights, so that reference is in the article. When someone comes to a Wikipedia article about the law, that person wants to know what the law says. This article does that, along with referring to contrary opinions. SMP0328. (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. If the statement above comes from Heller, it should say, "According to Heller…". Leaving that out makes it read like Wikipedia's opinion, which it's not, because Wikipedia doesn't have opinions. I'm not finding fault with the article; I'm finding fault just with that particular sentence. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The Lede Section
. . . is simply too long. Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 05:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. What do you want to be removed from the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I am Joseph Benedikt Anton Michael Adam to your Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, I guess.  <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 04:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

#NeverAgain
As much as I do not agree with those kids trying to take away our guns, I think it would be appropriate to mention the Never Again movement in the 'Calls for Repeal' section. I'd offer to fix it myself but I won't be mending fences anytime soon -Freedom Strength Liberty (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The leaders of that movement say they do not support repealing the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Repeal" section
Including a "call for repeal" section is problematic and unencyclopedic. The topic belongs in Gun control. THIS article is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the various court cases interpreting the Amendment, not the on-going and fractious political debate about guns. Hence it has been commented out. – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is such a section in the 17A article. Also, there are people currently calling for repeal. They are a small minority, but their comments have received attention from reliable sources. This article should reflect this view of the Second Amendment. We can discuss how much should be this section, but this section belongs in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE does not address the concern that this article is about the 2nd A, in and of itself. Calls for repeal (which is extremely unlikely) are simply part of the current and ongoing political passion. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that this material is about demands for the Second Amendment's repeal means it is appropriate for that material to be in the article about the Second Amendment. The material includes a reliably-sourced comment saying repeal would be highly difficult. I agree that calls for repeal should not be given undue weight, but neither should such calls be barred from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If or when specific legislation is introduced to begin the Constitutional process of amending the Constitution, the effort would be encyclopedic and appropriate for this article. (But to my knowledge no such legislation has been introduced.) Until then the talk of repeal is just talk, and off-topic. The Gun law in the US – 2nd Amendment link in the See also section is the appropriate place to place such talk. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC) And I have added the material from this article to the Gun laws article. 05:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

State constitutional precursors
A new section to the article dealing with RKBA provisions in State Constitutions prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This section has been formatted as a table. Is that proper? Also, the new section mainly list those provisions without any context as to how they are relevant to this article. I reverted the addition of this section once, but have been stealthily reverted by the new section's author. The new section should either be deleted or greatly revised to better fit with the rest of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the formatting, its not the prettiest thing, but that can be improved, and while WP:PROSE is preferred, lists/tables are acceptable in some circumstances, and tit seems like this may apply to the current circumstance. (Although I would not be opposed two rewriting it into prose) Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists. Regarding the overall applicability of the content to the article, I don't see an issue with discussing the influence state constitutions may have had on the bill of rights (and in particular the 2nd), this is not an unusual topic out there. . However, I do agree that the sectoin could use a great deal of work. Explicit analysis is available from 3rd parties regarding this topic, and at a minimum we could use them to formulate some introductory text to the section. I'm not completely sold on having the text of each state amendment copied in, It may be more useful just to list the states and focus on the (reliability sourced) commentary of how each state was relevant or influential. Some of the existing commentary seems a bit off (notably the section on quakers seems a bit non-sequitur)  ResultingConstant (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cooley quote
@SMP0328. asserts that my edit (in bold) pushes a POV. I assert that the original edit pushed a POV by omitting vital context, which my edit provides by completing Cooley's full paragraph cited by Scalia in Heller.

I propose a reasonable compromise: delete "but still within the context of enabling the government to have a well-regulated militia" but keep '''"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."  Judge Thomas M. Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment, and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people," but still within the context of enabling the government to have a well-regulated militia:'''

"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. 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." soibangla (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I approve of the addition to the quote. The full quote should be used. I objected to the addition of "but still within the context of enabling the government to have a well-regulated militia", because that is your opinion. Let the readers interpret Cooley words. SMP0328. (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not my opinion, it's the accurate reading of the paragraph which had been truncated by the original editor to push a POV. It's called a lie of omission, which is quite common among certain partisans. But whatever... soibangla (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If that phrase was your objection to the edit, the proper response would have been to delete that phrase. Instead, you made a reflexive, wholesale deletion. Moreover, you then "ran to mommy" to demand the page be locked over a matter that could have been easily resolved on this page, like countless other disputes are every day on WP. That is not demonstrative of good faith. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread my edit. I only deleted the phrase. SMP0328. (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. And yet I was correct to say "within the context of enabling the government to have a well-regulated militia" because Cooley said the big "but" in the sentence that had been rather conveniently truncated: "But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia." I neutralized the pre-existing bias. And you didn't like that, so you ran to mommy and had all my edits removed. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember to be civil. I had the article locked so we could talk this out before any changes are made to the article. It's a legitimate reason to have an article fully protected. SMP0328. (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's standard procedure to challenge and talk, rather than immediately act capriciously with locking as if there is vandalism afoot. The fact you immediately moved to locking suggests that something less than honorable is at play, and I have observed such behavior before on WP when "some uppity interloper" shows up on the long-timers' turf and violates WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And by locking it up for a few days, maybe the uppity interloper will give up and go away, so certain editors can reassert their "rightful ownership" of the article. In short, the system is being gamed. Trolls? On Wikipedia? You don't say! soibangla (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Burger was objectively conservative
@SMP0328., I direct you to the lede of Burger's bio article, which contains this document ranking Burger among the more conservative justices.

Don't believe that source? Try this "authoritative" one. ha

During his 13 years on that court, Burger earned a reputation as a conservative constructionist

His bio also shows him as a Republican.

Cheers. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why so argumentative? It is your opinion that Burger is "conservative", not objective. Citing sources that agree with your opinion doesn't convert your opinion into being objective. To write that Burger is "conservative" without any sourcing is to say that no reasonable editor could disagree with you. Citing Conservapedia as a reliable source is absurd on its face, no better than citing Wikipedia. Also, how is Burger's political/legal philosophy relevant to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not being argumentative. Are you being a troll?


 * Many RSs say Burger was conservative, it's indisputable, not a POV. If you want me to provide five cites, I'll do it.


 * Of course "Citing Conservapedia as a reliable source is absurd on its face," did you not detect my obvious sarcasm, the quotes in "authoritative," followed by "ha?"


 * "how is Burger's political/legal philosophy relevant to the article?" As I said in my edit summary, he's been dead for 23 years, many people have no idea who he was, it's important to spend just a few words so that some readers will not dismiss him out of hand, as many these days seem to do, because "pfft, he must have been a liberal" soibangla (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Burger has been described as a moderate by The New York Times. SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not Burger himself — "his tenure": "Warren Burger lacked the votes to overturn some landmarks from the Court headed by Earl Warren." soibangla (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should everyone else mentioned in the article be labeled as a "liberal", "conservative", or "moderate"? If such a description is relevant for Burger, it's relevant for everyone else. Ultimately, such a description is subjective and would likely would be giving undue weight to such a description. What matters is what Burger said, not whether he was a "conservative." SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whenever feasible, yes, political orientation should be mentioned. That may not be feasible for historical figures from the 18th and 19th centuries, but in the modern, post-war era it is feasible and should be done, because the 2nd Amendment is largely, almost entirely, debated along political lines in the modern era. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @SMP0328, do you have any further comments on this, or can my edit proceed? soibangla (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I continue to think the description is subjective, but that issue might be fixed by referencing sources describing Burger as a "conservative". The other problem is relevance. You believe that some readers will think Burger was a liberal, because of his view on the Second Amendment. That's speculative. Do you think if a reader believes Burger to have been a liberal then that reader will discount what he said? Finally, while he may have been a conservative in general, perhaps Burger was a liberal regarding the Second Amendment. Nobody has to be all one or all the other. His view of the Second Amendment was more in line with what liberals said about the Second Amendment at the time and what liberal Supreme Court Justices said in Heller and McDonald. For these reasons, I still oppose including "conservative" in describing Burger. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not speculative, it is abundantly obvious to anyone closely following what's going on. Namely, "anyone who disagrees with our fringe right-wing positions can only be an evil liberal that can/should be ignored, because we are the new mainstream of America." This is a pervasive strategy everywhere one looks now. You say, "perhaps Burger was a liberal regarding the Second Amendment" and "His view of the Second Amendment was more in line with what liberals said about the Second Amendment at the time," but can you establish that with evidence, rather than grasp at straws? As often happens with conservatives, after they leave office they admit their party line had been nonsense all along, and now they're free to speak their minds (as Burger did). Finally, you insist "I continue to think the description is subjective," despite absolutely overwhelming proof to the contary, suggesting that you really, really don't want this article to show a real conservative saying the NRA is a fraud. soibangla (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's really clear is that you have an agenda. I was not asserting as fact that Burger was a liberal regarding the Second Amendment (note the use of the word "perhaps"), only explaining how the use of the word "conservative" could be confusing in this case. It seems you want to push your view of the Second Amendment and are using the Burger quotes, along with describing him as a "conservative", to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "What's really clear is that you have an agenda" HAHAHA! Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no agenda regarding this article, other than improving it and keeping others from decreasing its quality. I added the Calls for repeal section, which angered many editors. I'm not trying to push this article in a pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights position. Now can we work this out? SMP0328. (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Burger was objectively and indisputably a conservative Republican. The fact that he was unable to sway liberal justices on the SCOTUS on some issues is irrelevant. Burger himself was a conservative Republican. Period. My edit must be promptly restored. We can discuss the other edits challenged by @SMP0328. elsewhere on Talk, one issue at a time.

• "Ranking the Politics of Supreme Court Justices": Burger ranks 6th most conservative of 43 justices since 1937

• "Ideological Values and the Votes of Supreme Court Justices": Burger ranks among most conservative justices since 1937-2012

• "he was cautiously conservative on most issues, but on issues involving the rights of the criminally accused, he was known as a "law-and-order" judge...Nixon hoped Burger would provide strong leadership needed to curb what he and many conservatives believed was the Warren Court's liberalism"

• "During his 13 years on that court, Burger earned a reputation as a conservative constructionist...Burger had been an early Nixon supporter back in 1952 when Burger was a practicing attorney in Minnesota and a political figure in the Republican Party"

• "In 13 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he was known as a conservative, law-and-order judge...He went to the 1948 Republican National Convention to help Governor Stassen's unsuccessful bid for the Presidential nomination...In 1952, he was at the Republican convention again, still a Stassen supporter. But he helped Dwight D. Eisenhower's forces win a crucial credentials fight"

• "Burger joined a prominent St. Paul law firm and gradually became active in Republican Party politics...Burger’s generally conservative approach during his 13-year service (1956–69) on the nation’s second highest court commended him to President Richard M. Nixon, who in 1969 named Burger to succeed Earl Warren as chief justice of the Supreme Court"

• "Burger was active in Republican politics...Besides being a law and order hard-liner, Burger also proved to be a conservative authoritarian"

• "Ever since 1969, when President Nixon appointed Warren Burger to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice, observers have been anticipating the emergence of a conservative Supreme Court and the end of an era of expanding civil rights and civil liberties"

• "Eisenhower put Burger on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There he was known for an emphasis on "law and order" and a judicially conservative approach narrowly reading federal statutes and the Constitution"

• "Burger served as chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1969 until 1986. Linda Greenhouse, author of The Burger Court, says those years helped establish the court's conservative legal foundation"

• "Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, an outspoken conservative...was heavily involved in Republican politics"

• "he gained a reputation as a “law-and-order” judge, with a starkly conservative stance on the rights of the accused. He publicly criticized the Fifth Amendment, and voiced his concerns that the Supreme Court had overreached in its protection of the accused. It was this reputation, and his connections in the Republic[sic Party...Nixon appointed Burger in the hope that his deference to “law and order” would reign in what many conservatives saw as liberal judicial activism"] soibangla (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise
Rather than have this edit dispute continue, let's reach a compromise. I propose the following:
 * I agree to having Burger described as a conservative;
 * You agree to not add a reference to the Cooley quote being in the context of a well-regulated militia.

Is this acceptable? SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Deal. See how easy that could have been? soibangla (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the content dispute is over, you can ask that the page be unprotected. I'm at work and cannot do adminy things from work. Ask at WP:RFPP and note that I am unavailable till probably Tuesday. Perhaps is available as he has familiarity with matter at hand.Dlohcierekim&#39;s sock (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just made the request. SMP0328. (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Reject "supports the Second Amendment" phraseology
A Google search for "supports the second amendment" (with the quotes) on English Wikipedia, "supports the second amendment" site:en.wikipedia.org, has 24 results. There are several problems with Wikipedia saying that an individual or organization "supports the Second Amendment". In many cases, Wikipedia would be echoing that individual or organization's own ipse dixit claim, which is not coming from a third-party reliable source. Even if it comes from a reliable source, the phrase "supports the Second Amendment" could mean many possible interpretations of the Second Amendment, so the reader learns nothing about the individual or group's actual views on gun ownership and carry. Most important, though, is that in most cases, "supports the Second Amendment" is used to mean support for an interpretation of the Second Amendment emphasizing an individual right to own and carry guns. Until District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. courts had continually held that the Second Amendment did not include an individual right to own and carry guns, and in this point remains controversial. Notably, a Google search for "opposes the second amendment" on English Wikipedia, "opposes the second amendment" site:en.wikipedia.org, has zero results (although that will change when this page is indexed), which suggests that groups and individuals that support limitations on gun ownership and carry do not describe themselves, and are not described by others, as opposing the Second Amendment, which in turn means that groups and individuals that generally oppose limitations on gun ownership and carry should not be described as supporting the Second Amendment. (Without restricting to English Wikipedia, there are 213,000 results for "supports the second amendment" and only 50 for "opposes the second amendment", confirming my point.)

Wikipedia should not take sides in the disputed interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment and should not use phrases like "supports the Second Amendment"; instead Wikipedia should say more precisely that an individual or organization supports an interpretation of the Second Amendment that ..." or otherwise describes their views on what limitations should or should not exist with respect to gun ownership and carry. I look forward to a discussion on this topic, and if there is a consensus, we can edit articles that are out of alignment with that consensus. Here are some examples of language illustrating the problem:
 * Gary Leif: Leif supports the Second Amendment and is pro-life.
 * Matt Gurtler: He supports the Second Amendment.
 * Phil Christofanelli: He supports the Second Amendment.

I hope other Wikipedians will agree that these and similar examples should be replaced with more specific language detailing the individual's views. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The phrase is objectionable on multiple fronts. It can be WP:OR (if we are interpreting other things they have said), and its almost a meaningless phrase, since even staunch gun control proponents say they support the second amendment (although some of them significantly dispute what the amendment means). However, gun laws are exceedingly complex, and I do think a "summary" sentence is within acceptable bounds of our duty as editors, but I think "generally supports gun rights", or "generally supports gun control" are much less loaded and confusing statements than making people parse what the second amendment means. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect phrasing, because these people actually support a specific reading of the Second Amendment, which may not correctly interpret it. However, that does not appear to be an issue in this article and so this is not the correct forum. You should raise it at the Village Pump. TFD (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is what should replace "supports the Second Amendment." I suggest "supports an individual right-based interpretation of the Second Amendment." Those who disagree with Heller could be described as "supports a militia-based interpretation of the Second Amendment." SMP0328. (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * TFD: Thank you for your thoughts. I believe the discussion belongs here. There are five village pumps: Policy, Technical, Proposals, Idea lab, Miscellaneous. It doesn't feel right to me to put this discussion in any of them. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It says at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Nothing in this discussion involves changing this article and no conclusions we reach can be used to change any other article.
 * The most relevant guideline is Contentious labels, which is part of the manual of style. It says we should not use terms that "may express contentious opinion." If you can persuade other editors at the Village Pump that "supports the Second Amendment" expresses a contentious opinion, then it can be removed across the encyclopedia. Or you can argue your case on the talk page of each and every article that uses the term.
 * TFD (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * TFD: Which of the five Village Pumps would you recommend? —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would try proposals first. Then if other editors agree (or even if they don't) you can take it to policy (which includes guidelines). Going to proposals first may attract alternative approaches to the issue. TFD (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ResultingConstant, SMP0328., TFD: I started a discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 60. I didn't copy anyone else's comments, just my own. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Two issues with the introduction
There is a period in the middle of one sentence and someone added a sentence about “Prior to Heller...” which is not supported by citation or the body of the article. While Heller is the first time the USSC affirmed an individual right interpretation, that court never affirmed a collective right interpretation. Reading the discussion of Miller in the body of the article simply does not support the assertion. Older and ... well older (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good eye. The Ninth Circuit had interpreted Miller as endorsing a collective-right reading of the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court never so ruled and Heller rejected the Ninth Circuit's decision. SMP0328. (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Safeguarding Against Tyranny
Please forgive (and correct) me if I'm doing this wrong... I noticed that citation #60, on the 3rd bullet point, under the heading "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" links to an article in what appears to be a gun enthusiasts' magazine from the 1960. This is in itself is not necessarily a problem I think, but upon reading the article, I find that the article "Know Your Lawmakers) is nothing more than a series of quotes from senators and congressmen of that time period (1960), expressing their own opinions/beliefs regarding the second amendment. However well-informed those opinions may be, I see no quotes whatsoever, from anyone who was involved in drafting the Second Amendment, nor from anyone who was alive at the time it was drafted. In fact I see nothing in the cited article which supports the claim that the second amendment was viewed by early English settlers in America as important for Safeguarding against tyrannical government. Honestly I see nothing whatsoever in that article that would give evidence as to the opinions of early english settlers on this matter, one way or the other.

I am NOT debating whether or not "defense against a tyrannical government" was an important concern of those who wrote the 2nd Amendment; in fact I am sure that this idea must have at least occurred to them when they wrote it. What bothers me is that the article cited here gives no evidence whatsoever for the intentions of those who actually wrote the 2nd Amendment. Surely a better citation could be found to support this notion; some historical record from the actual time when the 2nd Amendment was written? As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment was not written in 1960, so what does it matter (to the purpose of this particular statement) how lawmakers in 1960 personally felt about it? If any one of them were quoting people from the relevant time period, or from historical accounts of that time, it would make sense, but this, does not. OwlParty (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What Heller did

 * decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun


 * for the first time declared the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains a specific right to individual gun ownership


 * Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun


 * ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense


 * the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home.


 * "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. The Second Amendment, Scalia said, "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." soibangla (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First sentence must include everything the amendment declares and restricts.
Merriam Webster dictionary defines necessary as: absolutely needed : REQUIRED.

I agree with the person that reverted my edit that 2A does not require state malitias (militia); militia is inalienable. But "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (governmental) powers", the preamble of the Bill of Rights forwards a further declaratory and restrictive clause. It declares (necessitates) that in order to have a free state is a well regulated militia is required. Infringing on this construct, and thereby an individual right to keep and bear, is unconstitutional/restricted. Put another way.. the militia has to be well regulated but the regulations can not infringe on the individual right to keep and bear. The word shall was used because it was understood prior ratification, by the first legislature, that the committee they created would begin to establish what well regulated should mean. This is confirmed by the second Congress's "Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States." By creating a false narrative that excludes the necessity of a well regulated militia in the first sentence, this provides the argument, that the bill of rights does not constitute, authorize, ordain, or establish that we have a well regulated militia. This article's government tyranny section explicitly rejects this argument. If, as stated, 2A only protects the right to keep and bear arms, then the committee of 11 would have used their quill to strike a line through everything post semicolon on Madison's original proposal. And the debates, as presented in the "Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights" section of this article would be moot. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source for "individual?" Here's a reliable source for "the people": 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. soibangla (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I can. The Heller decision, presented on the Supreme Court's webpage (a reliable source), bottom of the first page, affirmed "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm..."  This is "unconnected", from "the people"  "with service in a militia"; or as many had/have argued is "we the people".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philfromwaterbury (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your use of an ellipsis and words plucked from context to obfuscate that Heller was a narrow, qualified opinion rather than a broad, unqualified opinion is duly noted. Your edit also reverts long-standing consensus after the issue had been extensively debated. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Held: 1. 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." Pp. 2–53. defines a narrow qualified opinion? Please expand on "the people" as such a strong opinion deserves illumination in the Meaning of "the right of the People" section of this page. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead should introduce the amendment as accurately as possible, given multiple interpretations
The lead currently describes the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the individual right to bear arms. This does not capture multiple interpretations of the Second Amendment, as well as relation of this right to statehood and its militia. It is more accurate to describe succinctly 1.) what the Amendment does guarantee 2.) the various interpretations that do include the individual right to bear arms as well as the interpretations that maintain it strictly to collective states 3.) associating the well armed militia to *the state* (it currently reads as a militia, without government relation.)

While DC v. Heller does support the individual right to bear arms interpretation, it also supports the language around statehood and the state's right to bear arms for its militia. This is not quite captured in the lead.

Introducing that there are multiple interpretations of the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain an entry free from bias.

I would also offer a lead that acknowledges that interpretations of the Amendment take into consideration both contemporary discussion as well as the historical context for which the Second Amendment was written.

I had added several other citations and scholarship to support that interpretations of the Second Amendment distinguish between the individual's right to bear arms and a state's (the collective theory interpretation) militia right to bear arms, for the collective security. These citations are added to support the change in language and a sufficiency to better represent contemporary and historical dialogue around the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Peakedits (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed lead:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects an individual state’s right to keep and bear arms and the right to a well regulated militia. In other interpretations and in certain states, the amendment has been argued to protect an individual’s right to bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home,   while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. [...]

Citations proposed for addition (if you have issues with the proposed citations, please argue your reasons why instead of removing them without justification.):

Peakedits (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand your suggestion in principle, because you seem to want to better reflect the context of the amendment. But the amendment definitively protects the individual right to bear arms, per the amendment itself. It's already better discussed in later paragraphs in the lead what is meant by a well-regulated militia being necessary to defend a state. But I'm not opposed to the first sentence better reflecting the context. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A well regulated militia is nothing more than a well-trained militia. It has nothing to do with laws.  Like a well regulated clock keeps good time, a well regulated militia simply functions well.  This has nothing to do with states, either.  The People have the right to keep and bear arms, as a pre-existing right that pre-dates the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment simply prohibits any Government infringement of this pre-existing right.  Have removed the original research regarding states.  States have powers, not rights.  People have rights and liberty, not powers.  Fundamental civics, really.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Describing the SCOTUS interpretation as "In other interpretations and in certain states" is a ridiculously POV burying of the lead. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The right to a well-regulated militia, or not
Hello. You keep changing the lead sentence of the article, to say that the Second Amendment protects, in addition to the right to keep and bear arms, "the right to a well-regulated militia". Then multiple editors keep changing it back. It appears that you're the only one who thinks that the lead should say that. This being Wikipedia, I recommend that you try to persuade your fellow editors that the lead should be changed in that way, instead of engaging in edit warring. As part of that, can you provide reliable sources to support your position? I have seen may reliable sources that say that the amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms -- and of course, there is considerable disagreement about exactly what that means. I'm not aware of any non-fringe opinions that say that the amendment protects the right to a well-regulated militia. But I'm prepared to read your response with an open mind. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing "individual" from lede
The IP editor and registered editor who have been removing "individual" from the lede should read Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 35 and abide by consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) (Section added to link 13:50 15 October 2019 UT)

Hi, I am not the person referenced above on 10 October. I did, however, edit the article to remove the word 'individual' this evening when I happened across it today, and saw it was quickly reverted. I did not realize (perhaps naively) that this was the subject of an edit war.

I am rather curious about the consensus that was reached regarding the above - is it not clearer to state plainly that the provision protects the right to bear arms, and let the rest of the article detail the discussion around the particulars? The topic of the Heller decision, and its interpretation of the individual right, is addressed only two sentences later. The current text reads very pointedly, when the following is simpler, and entirely non-controversial: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms."

Could someone explain briefly, for my benefit, why this was decided otherwise? Thanks in advance. 94.59.84.229 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to add the section within the archive that contains the latest discussion. I just fixed that.
 * That discussion mentions, among other things, "burying the lede". The lede summarizes the key points that would be of interest to readers. Since the controversy within the last half-century or more has been about the individual right, rather than the state power, it is appropriate to include current Supreme Court position in the lede. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, though I suppose I am more wondering why it is necessary to include the contentious word in the very first sentence, when it is addressed immediately afterwards. The lede is hardly buried, were it excluded. 92.96.144.235 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the lead sentence would be better without the word "individual". It would then read, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms," which is what the amendment actually says. The second paragraph of the lead talks all about it being an individual right, which I think is more than adequate. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. 31.215.54.253 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Golly, I wonder if organized and determined political activists could have anything to do with "individual" persisting in the first sentence. soibangla (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is what I was considering when I mentioned how pointedly the current text reads. 31.215.54.253 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What the amendment protects is determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That court determined the amendment protects an individual right. That should be clearly stated right from the start of the article. No good reason has been given for removing "individual" from the first sentence of the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it is a limited individual right, and the current wording sounds like it's unconditional. Scalia wrote: "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” You know, like military-grade assault weapons. Heller was about self-defense in the home, not permitting heavily-armed self-declared "patriot militias." soibangla (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Every right is limited and nowhere in this article is it claimed the individual right to keep and bear arms is absolute. SMP0328. (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So would you object to adding "limited" to make this explicitly clear, as Heller explicitly does? soibangla (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the entire history of the provision. It is not only about the provision as currently interpreted. The opening sentence is not an accurate introduction to the full content of the article. It is simpler, clearer, less pointed, and more comprehensive to open the article with the following sentence: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms." 92.96.154.132 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

How is this not a semi-protected article?
Just curious as seeing in the talk page there are a lot of sanctions listed for the page, but didn't see the icon deeming it semi-protected, I'm sure there is a good reason for this I'm just more curious about what that reason is? EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1795 Musket.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1795 Musket.jpg

Calls for repeal -- Undue Weight
I have moved the material quoted below from the article. This "Calls for repeal" section provided undue weight to the suggestion that the Second Amendment be repealed. None of these suggestions have led to anything approaching repeal and so having a whole section devoted to the idea of repealing the Second Amendment exaggerates its importance and viability. SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"==Calls for repeal== On June 27, 2008, a day after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial that the Second Amendment should be repealed so local governments could ban firearms in an effort to protect their residents.

On October 5, 2017, political commentator Bret Stephens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, arguing that repeal is the only effective way to regulate firearms.

On March 27, 2018, former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Stevens said that Heller went against the settled understanding of the Second Amendment as being militia-based and that overruling that decision by repealing the Second Amendment would be "simple." President Trump responded the next day to Stevens's call for repeal by saying that it would never happen. Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that Stevens's comments were "staggeringly misplaced" and could set back demands for gun control. She also said an attempt at repeal would be "a daunting task" likely to fail."

Preserving Slave Patrols Hartmann and Carl Bogus
With deep appreciation towards the sensitivity and controversy of the matter I only wish to point out that under the section Preserving Slave Patrols it cites Thom Hartmann. However the citation links to Thom Hartman discussing the work of law professor Carl Bogus. Bogus' work is cited a few other places through the article, namely around part about insurrections. I suggest streamlining this somehow and removing Hartmann as he is just citing someone else's work and is himself not a scholar of the Amendment. Sovereignlance (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Introductory description of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment neither protects a right nor does it refer to individuals. The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms and it refers to Americans only with plural group nouns: "militia" & "people". There is plenty of space for a full discussion of the varying interpretations of the amendment (including the recent Heller & McDonald decisions) without presenting a distorted view of the amendment in the article's first lines. James Nicol (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Introduction accurately describes the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Second Amendment, just as is done on similar articles. There are other possible interpretations, but this article is about the amendment's official meaning; that's determined by the Supreme Court. SMP0328. (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The introduction is not to describe the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Second Amendment. There is plenty of space for a history of the interpretations of the amendment. The introduction should stick to the text. It does not "protect" a right, and it does not use singular nouns. Let's keep the introduction clear. James Nicol (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not make that change to the Introduction again without first achieving a consensus for it before hand. There was a consensus achieved previously for the Introduction referring to an individual right (check the archives}. Other articles on Constitutional rights refer to Supreme Court decisions interpreting the applicable amendment (e.g., Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment). No good reason for this article to be different. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The opening statement on a controversial topic should not define that topic in terms of one side of that controversy, even with reference to the current opinion of Supreme Court. The wording by James Nicol is appropriately neutral.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There being no response, I have placed a pov tag on the opening sentence. It states that the amendment itself protects an individual right, rather than the precedent set by the Heller decision. This distinction should be clarified in a neutral way. I find no references to precedent in the opening sections of any of the other articles on the bill of rights.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my view on this question. The first sentence of the article should say, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms," without the word "individual". That's a good, short, neutral summary of what the Second Amendment is. Whether or not this right to bear arms is protected for individuals is still controversial, and that question has a long history of being debated. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect an individual right. That's a very important point, and it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, probably in the first paragraph. The long-running debate is also very significant and should also be mentioned in the lead. Edited to add: In reviewing the current version of the lead section, removing the word "individual" from the first sentence would pretty much cover what I'm saying. So, I'm in favor of doing that. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Does the First Amendment's "the People" refer to individuals or some vague amorphous mass population or even the state itself? Is there any controversy over that?  Then --- especially in light of the Supreme Court's explicit rulings in multiple cases (Miller, Heller, McDonald) --- why should it be inappropriate to state that it is an individual right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacon's Rebellion and the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705
So, I'm not a historian. But, I'm reading this non-fiction book, "Four Hundred Souls" edited by Ibram X. Kendi and Keisha N. Blain which tells a history of African America from 1619 to 2019. It was published by One World in 2021. And in the chapter written by Heather C. McGhee for the years 1679-1684 on page 53 of the book (isbn:9780593134047), she sort of asserts that the post Bacon Rebellion laws passed in the colony of Virginia helped shaped the groundwork for the 2nd amendment in the context of maintaining the slave hierarchy: "Post-Bacon reforms forbade Black people to carry anything that could be considered a weapon, but they made sure that every manumitted indentured servant was given a musket." And this is interesting to me because these laws were obviously created before the country became a country, but neither Bacon's Rebellion of 1676, which disrupted the tobacco trade with England, or these reforms, including the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 are included on this page. What do you guys think?Smellyshirt5 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and then, the nextish chapter written by Laurence Ralph, he talks about the French Code Noir which also discusses how enslaved people couldn't carry weapons, which also might have influenced the 2nd amendment or not. Or at least throw it down in the "See also" section? Because New France or whatever is like, Louisiana an stuff. Think about it? Smellyshirt5 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this article poorly presents the right to keep and bear arms before the Bill of Rights was enacted. The right was considered to be part of English common law which meant it applied to Virginia which had received the English common law upon its settlement. The English Bill of Rights 1689 also applied throughout British America and continued to be the law in every state until repealed or amended. Government wanted individuals to be armed in order to protect it, but also didn't wanted people who might threaten it to be armed. TFD (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

An article discussing a constitutional amendment should begin with the actual amendment
Whenever possible, a discussion about a topic like a constitutional amendment should begin with the actual amendment.

This is particularly true of one with such dispute about interpretation. As currently written, the Wiki about the second amendment requires a number of paragraphs - and in the phone-based version, opening subheadings, to actually find the language of the amendment.

The actual amendment should be the opening paragraph in the article. Macroceophalus (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An article's Introduction is a summary of the entire article. So articles about Constitutional amendments begin with a summary of the article, followed by the text of the amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"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."

Paraphrased, "For the security of a free United States, a well regulated Militia, being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For purposes of better understanding, militia has been supersede by a full fledged military, therefore right to bear arms is no longer necessary. Right to bear arms is not infringed as joining the military, they will issue you a gun and provide training and at times even a target. 73.225.182.47 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was originally unclear on what it was advocating, and then the recent post was basically somebody arguing against the current existence of the second amendment. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TMartini82.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

==Is this necessary?=

Does this ammendment legalize murder? Why do so many people defend an unecessary ammendment that gives criminals an excuse to own guns?

Regarding section "Argument for state power"
I am a bit confused by the section on "Argument for state power" as it stands. First, outside of quoting the Constitution, it is uncited. It says "There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution" but it does not say from whom. It was certainly not substantial enough to prevent the ratification of the new constitution. It's also unclear if this opposition took place before or after ratifying the Bill of Rights. Now, searching the talk archive, I managed to find this discussion that seems to go into some primary sources, but I was having trouble spotting secondary sources on the topic. That said, the discussion section is a bit heated, making it troublesome to parse.

Next, the section states: "This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy..." I am under the impression that this is straight up incorrect; the Constitution makes no mention of specific power to maintain a federal standing army, only a standing navy. The Continental army was disbanded after the end of the Revolutionary War. I was under the impression that the original intention was to make use of the state militias when army forces were needed, up until the creation of the Regular Army.

Finally, this doesn't seem like a debate; it's a criticism. A debate would have a counter-argument. And if the quoted text of the Constitution is intended as the counterargument, then that is unclear. Currently, I do not know enough about this matter to know what edits to make. I'll try to continue to investigate while waiting for comment. Thanks all! -Verdatum (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Text
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states. These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of its prefatory clause, which textualist Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia ruled as null in his District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) opinion. DigitALSacK (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The right to bear arms, here only in the context of a "well regulated militia", right?
Dear colleagues,

The article starts out with "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms." However, in the Amendment arms are allowed explicitly within the context of a "well regulated militia", right? This was understandable in the light of the experience with Minutemen against the British in the War of Independence. I know the Supreme Court recently broadened the scope, but originally, the context in the same sentence was the use of weapons in a militia. Other situations are not mentioned explicitly. So in the first sentence of the article we should mention the connection between Militia and Arms in the Second Amendment. And not skip this Militia. Now the first sentence lacks this important subtlety and unintentionally misinforms the reader. Arguments for and against? Hansmuller (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The focus in the Amendment clearly was on the militia. Otherwise, the order in the Second Amendment would have been the other way around: "The right ...arms, for instance in a militia... shall not be infringed". Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * People have always had issues with Supreme Court opinions. But they are infinitely more important, for Wikipedia purposes, than the opinions of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. The preceding posts carry no weight whatsoever. See WP:V for more details. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is an opinion that is being put forward without any citations to verifiable sources. ERA122586 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

British Bill of Rights 1689

 * Disarming Protestants, &c.
 * By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
 * Subjects’ Arms.
 * That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

I would naturally assume if people -- being Protestants -- are in an "able-bodied" condition, i.e. physically able to carry weapons, then this is expressly being permitted and allowed herein by this very law. For anyone who is able to walk and talk and not presently locked up in a prison or mental hospital. Kids are to be taught basic gun safety, etc. I don't see any exceptions or particular requirements to being "Protestant" except for those unworthy British subjects (Sicilian Mafia etc.) who would otherwise be caught bearing arms say on behalf of the Vatican, Rome, Italy, in rebellion against the United Kingdom, e.g. WWI and WWII when Britain was at war against Italy. Merely attending a Catholic church is not necessarily something that would be "forbidden" for a Protestant to do or disqualify a person from bearing Arms. (Just try to keep Martin Luther away from the Catholic Mass...)

-- 24.237.158.247 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What changes, if any, are you proposing? If none, please review WP:NOTAFORUM.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of “Shall not be infringed "
why isn't there a section on meaning of “shall not be infringed"? Zeon26 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it is a common legal concept that is not unique to this topic. -Verdatum (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't the use of "shall not be infringed" in this context peculiar? Normally you would refer to a law as being infringed. What is the law that is being infringed? If the Second Amendment is reduced to "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then what role is "shall not be infringed" playing? Psource (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly is a law being infringed here -- namely "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." A right explicitly enumerated in the supreme law of the land in the United States of America. The fact that there is a Militia, we can say male 18+, or able-bodied men, if there are boys technically too young for military service or if there are women acting in their own capacity as men or human beings, for denfense of self, family or country. Femininity or effeminacy, helplessness or childishness is not the point of bearing arms or weapons. The denial of our right to freely carry and possess firearms and other weapons is an act of high treason against the United States. 24.237.158.247 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Court of Appeals Section
The section that list Court of Appeals decisions should be greatly reformed or simply deleted. Most, if not all, of those decisions used "intermediate scrutiny" as the standard by which to review challenges to firearms laws. The Supreme Court in Bruen rejected that standard, ruling that American history should be the guide for such reviews. In light of Bruen, none of those decisions accurately reflects Second Amendment law. If the section is not deleted, the decisions currently in it should be replaced with decisions handed down post-Bruen. SMP0328. (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Security of a Free State" meaning National Defense in 1791
"being necessary to the security of a free state" is often overlooked. It states clearly that the purpose is for national defense. The job of that is the role of the military.

“A well-regulated Militia (armed civilians), being necessary to the security (defense) of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It was necessary in 1791, when the nation did not have a military to defend itself against foreign powers. Second Amendment is basically obsolete once the military is instituted, some decades after it's ratification.

To fully "enjoy" the Second Amendment, you would also need to join the military ("to the security of the free state").

A related law, The Militia Act of 1792, was repealed in 1795. Look for the words "revised" to read repealed at the bottom of the document. It rendered the 2nd Amendment neutered, as militia is not supported by additional laws.

174.61.215.220 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song


 * In the US Constitution the word "State" refers not to the Federal Government but the individual former colonies, which would become the "States"
 * And the Militia act of 1792 was replaced by the militia act of 1795, which modified but did not eliminate in fully any provisions 75.164.172.16 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

73.118.175.67 (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song


 * To expand upon this idea:
 * Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 sketch out the relationship of the Federal government with the existing Militias of the States. To fulfill the promise to Anti-Federalists, the First Congress drafted twelve laws limiting the powers of the Federal Government. Ten of these laws were approved by the States and became known as the Bill of Rights.
 * Among these laws was the Second Amendment, ensuring the States that the Federal government would not interfere with the Militias of the States. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." states the purpose of the Second Amendment. "The right of the people of keep and bear arms" states the noble nature of Militia service. "Shall not be infringed" indicates the federal government State sovereignty of these institutions.
 * Note that gun ownership is not a theme of the Second Amendment. ￼ Psource (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * These are personal opinions. Suggesting that gun ownership is not a "theme"(??) of the Second Amendment strikes me as... peculiar. Are there specific changes to the article you wish to add, with reliable sourcing? Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's literally in the 2nd Amendment text itself, "being necessary to security of a free state." Meaning for the defense of the state/nation in 1791. These are not opinions.
 * You are clearly not objective, if someone has to point this out to you.
 * 76.135.14.59 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song


 * This is a long settled matter in law - see the third sentence of the article - so personal reinterpretations of the meaning aren't particularly useful to article improvement. Tossing around 'you are clearly not objective' calls into question your own objectivity. Furthermore, it is expected that editors will conduct themselves in a civil manner, and not impute motive (or lack of objectivity). The security of a free state includes internal security, not just foreign. State constitutions that long preceded the Constitution and Second Amendment described it less tersely. You might benefit from reading the article more carefully. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Federalist Paper #29 should be mentioned? and Is fear of slave revolt part of the reason for support for this amendment?
The Federalist Papers were written to advocate for the ratification of the Constitution. Federalist Paper #29, written by Alexander Hamilton, clearly lists one of the purposes of militias is to put down insurrection. I think that the Wikipedia page on #29 supports this view. I have to wonder how much the fear of slave revolts was part of what led to the large number of large plantation owning delegates to support this amendment? There is ample evidence of the terror of slave revolts by the southern elite on Wikipedia's web page on Slave Revolts. Is it too off topic to suggest this fear lead to the support for armed slave patrols i.e. militias? 67.183.208.44 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research WP:NOR. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Reason for the 2nd Amendment
Continued from the James Madison FA nomination page : When you consider that the various state militias were used throughout the Revolutionary War, and at the time of ratification nearly all states in the north had either abolished slavery or were making efforts ( 1, 2, etc ), to do so, it goes that there was no need to arm an entire nation of militias for the sole purpose of keeping slave rebellions in check, and esp since these were very rare and isolated in the first place, even in Virginia,. Even John Brown got next to no support from slaves to get his slave rebellion going, so the idea that the 2nd Amendment was passed just to arm militias for dealing with runaway slaves and potential rebellions, frankly, sounds like a lot of bunk coming from the uninformed gun control camp, and as such, sort of flies in the face of the established facts and all the sources.out there. re: the new book, Madison's Militia, I generally don't trust any source that claims that all the sources are wrong in an effort to prop itself up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC).

Create subsection of "Scholarly commentary" entitled: Meaning of "shall not be infringed."
As it relates to the recent grammatical talk, and that which has been archived.

This article should have a subsection of "Scholarly commentary" entitled: Meaning of "shall not be infringed."

What shall not be infringed?

A well regulated militia? As it is necessary to the security of a free state.

The right to keep and bear arms?

Or both?

Or some other conjunction?

Which Constitution's, The U.S., the States respectively, shall not infringe? Philfromwaterbury (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Until Amendment XIV, the constraints of the Bill of Rights were considered to apply only to Federal actions. — How a militia could be "infringed" is a puzzle. —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023
Just swap around the paragraphs so the first thing you read is what the 2nd amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS actually says. THEN explain there are different versions.

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by scribe William Lambert, is preserved in the National Archives.[30] This is the version ratified by Delaware[31] and used by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller: 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.[32]

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[28][29] Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:[31][33][25]

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.

The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:[34]

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.[35][36]

The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:[31]

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. 50.34.156.185 (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your proposed edit would not improve the article. It makes sense to first note that there are differences, explain why those differences are important, and then discuss what the differences are. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023
In the section titled “Text,” citations are attached to supposed facts, but after a review of the sources listed, those sources do not uphold the supposed fact. Said differently, the supposed facts are not upheld by credible sources. For instance,

“ Some state-ratified versions, such as Maryland's, omitted the first or final commas:[31][33][25]”

Source 31 Davies is an incomplete citation and cannot be verified. Source 33 Campbell doesn’t mention Maryland but talks about omitting the comma in general terms. Source 25 Freedman talks about 18th century comma use in general terms but does not explicitly give an example from a “state-ratified version,” which is the point being made in this Wikipedia article. It seems random sources were attached in a misleading attempt to make a weak point seem credible.

Moreover, it’s just a bad sentence. A better wording would be: “Some state-ratified versions omitted the first and third commas. For instance, Maryland depicted Article the Fourth as,”

Similarly, the sources below do not explicitly prove the supposed fact being presented:

“ The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states:[34]

“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.[35][36]”

Source 34 Campbell only talks about New York’s version having one comma on page 184. It said nothing of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina. Citation number 34 should be moved to just after New York.

Source 35 is Congress’ final version of the proposed amendments from September 25, 1789 and has nothing to do with Pennsylvania’s act, which is the point being made in this Wikipedia article.

Source 36 is a GPO article that depicts the Second Amendment with one comma and says nothing about Pennsylvania’s act.

It appears who ever wrote this Wikipedia article did so maliciously. The rest of the sources should be fact checked. This article is not accurate or credible and does not deserve any protected status. 174.215.221.22 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller
It does not say only Self defense and the way it is written in the post is they ruled that it was self defense. "such as self-defense within the home" this allows for more uses of a the right to arms. It also does not state the main purpose of District of Columbia v. Heller was to "struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional" thus regulating the methods that a citizen wished to keep their ARMS was not up for debate. 2601:5CC:C701:8000:9196:5B69:D4F2:B63 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Second Amendment doesn't say "self-defense", it says "security of a free state" which is state and national defense.
 * They also repealed the Militia Act of 1792 in 1795, revised to read repealed at the bottom. Obsolescence of the militia as time went on. 76.135.35.127 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed and replaced with the Militia Act of 1795. Which in turn was also repealed and replaced with the Militia Act of 1903, which remains standing law today codified under 10 USC 246. Solaran X (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed 10 USC 246(b)(1) is well regulated.
 * But did the 1903 Sec. 25 deregulate 246(b)(2) to the extent that it is no longer "well regulated"
 * Afterall the prefatory clause of the second amendment does not say:
 * "A well regulated fraction portion of the Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)