Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 5

comma debate question
Dear readers:

I have added a citation tag to the following verbiage in the article:


 * There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment.

If there is a "debate" as to whether the presence or lack of the comma influences the meaning, then we should be able to find some evidence of somebody actually debating or discussing that point -- in the form of a primary, secondary, or tertiary source.

Just as importantly, the article should specifically state what the debate is. What do the debaters say the amendment means with the comma? What do the debaters say the amendment means without the comma?

As currently written, the article seems to raise the issue without actually saying what the issue is -- and without citing to any source that would show anyone is actually debating the issue. Yours, Famspear 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To avoid expending energy answering the wrong question, I want to make sure I understand what you are asking. My understanding is that you are NOT asking for citations regarding the debate over the existence of the comma ( think that is fairly well sourced), but instead you are asking for citations regarding whether it is debated that the comma would have any impact on the meaning.  Is this correct? - O^O 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow users: Yes, obviously there are differing text prints that do physically exist, as already documented in the article. I am saying that the article is simply deficient on two points: (1) the Wikipedia article should cite to specific reliable sources outside Wikipedia to show that someone outside Wikipedia actually has debated or discussed some sort of "with" and "without" meanings, and (2) the Wikipedia article should precisely state what those "with" and "without" meanings are.

Right now (unless I just missed it) the only sourcing in the article seems to show that different versions of the text exist -- without any real evidence that anyone outside Wikipedia even cares about the comma or lack thereof. If possible, the best sourcing would be an actual court decision, but there may little if anything available on that score. Second best would be discussion by legal scholars in peer reviewed journals, etc. Yours, Famspear 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Presser v. Illinios misquote
Whoever wrote this article misquotes the USSC in Presser v. Illinois. The author incorrectly inserts "[Second Ammendment]" when quoting the decision of the justices. The rights that the justices claimed were not inherent to citizenship were, in fact, military organization and military drill (Presser v. Illinois, 1886.)

Regarding the Second Amendment, the opinion states quite plainly "...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms...we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

The decision was that the legislation in question (Military Code of Illinois) did not impinge the right to "keep and bear arms", but the right to organize and drill an independant military (which is not constitutionally protected).

Illinois v. Presser in fact upholds the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right of citizens. 67.40.74.37 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A little note about the District of Columbia decision and the 9th Circuit Precedent and Fundamental Libertarianism
While jurisprudential circumspection is not the strong suit of this discussion, the following comment by the D.C. Circuit (a notoriously liberal/pro-government circuit in many other contexts) about the 9th Circuit's result-oriented distortion of long established federal constitutional jurisprudence is well worth reading:

We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it does not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18 (9th Cir. 2003). We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound. The Supreme Court has made clear that when considering whether a plaintiff has Article III standing, a federal court must assume arguendo the merits of his or her legal claim. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501-02 (1975) (assuming factual allegations and legal theory of complaint for purposes of standing analysis). We have repeatedly recognized that proposition. See Waukesha v. E.P.A., 320 F.3d 228, 235 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Pierce, 697 F.2d 303, 305 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Indeed, in reviewing the standing question, the court must be careful not to decide the questions on the merits for or against the plaintiff, and must therefore assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.” Waukesha, 320 F.3d at 235 (citing Warth, 422 U.S. at 502). This is no less true when, as here, the merits involve the scope of a constitutional protection.

The Second Amendment on its face makes the right to bear arms positively fundamental. The dismissive attitude shown by a number of federal and state courts towards individual claims to this fundamental right is unseemly and demonstrative of the fundamentally anti-individual nature of our society. For examply, many conservative right wing gun afficionados no doubt embraced John Ashcroft's ludicrous claim that the Patriot Act's Stalinistic invasion of individual rights would not be over-reached by the "forces of light" in the never-ending Crusade against the "dark side". As recent events prove, you can never be too paranoid. Any claim of federal (or state) hegemony over the right to bear arms is essentially a totalitarian power scam. It is not a liberal or conservative issue--it is an essential libertarian issue that goes to the heart of democratic individualism. Elcajonfarms 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the D.C. Circuit is a very conservative circuit. Most of its decision agree with the philosophy of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. 70.21.100.37 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor terminology change
Dear editor SaltyBoatr: Regarding a recent edit to this article: If the material is redundant, then perhaps it should be deleted. It looks like you instead left the material in the article, but changed the wording back to a prior version.

A precedent cannot be "variable," nor can it be "unsettled." A precedent is basically a court decision. You can, however, have different courts coming up with different decisions (different precedents) that conflict with each other, which is what I think is really meant in the article. The state of the law on a particular issue (here, the interpretation of the Second Amendment) can be "unsettled," in the sense that some courts are ruling one way and and other courts are ruling another way. I think that's really what you have here.

A given court decision itself, however, cannot really be "variable" or "unsettled." A decision is a decision, and is binding (until and unless overturned by a higher court decision, etc., etc.).

Now I see that editor Yaf has reverted back to my version. Anyway, your thoughts? Yours, Famspear 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Obviously, as you have pointed out in your prior edits, the binding effect of a given court decision does depend on the jurisdiction of the court (i.e., only the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding across the entire USA). Famspear 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the editing error, moot now, but I see that you understand my point. My goal is to keep the article NPOV, and the back and forth on this piece of text in the article stems from the POV push that existed there two weeks ago, when the text implied that the Emerson and Parker cases were precedent setting across the nation.  They are not, and I welcome all editors' collaboration to find the best wording to say this most clearly.  SaltyBoatr 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I don't follow the edit history of this article closely (even though it is on my watch list), so I'm not always aware of the previous back and forth stuff very much. I know it's a constant battle in articles like this one to try to keep the non-neutral POV stuff out, as well as unverifiable statements about what courts actually ruled in one case or another. Yours, Famspear 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That list of "current precedents" is pretty lengthy in an already overly long article, and gets into a lot of details that don't create a clear picture overall. Maybe it'd be easier just to say the current state of judicial precedents is that courts differ on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, that the Supreme Court has not yet clarified that point in the face of conflicting interpretations of U.S. v. Miller, and that courts have not found the Second Amendment to preclude any local, state, or federal restrictions on firearms, with the exception of the D.C. Circuit, where current precedent is that the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional.  That's the bottom line, and I don't think listing all kinds of technical firearms restrictions in detail adds to it. PubliusFL 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'bottom line' summary you present appears to be original research, but I welcome to learn of credible attribution for your idea. I don't see that credible neutral experts see 'conflicting interpretations of U.S. v. Miller.  U.S. v. Miller has been settled law for several generations.  I concede that pro-gun partisans disagree loudly, but this article is supposed to present the neutral view, and I argue that the SCOTUS by definition has the arbitrary authority to set the neutral view.  SaltyBoatr 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What, if anything, the Miller Court was saying about the Second Amendment with respect to the individual versus collective issue is clearly a matter of significant debate. Some scholars interpret it as intending that you have to be a militia member to have the right.  Others interpret it as intending that the weapon itself must have be useful for militia purposes, without prejudice to an individual right to own such weapons.  See, for example, Prof. Robert Cottrol from the GWU Law School versus Prof. Robert Spitzer from SUNY Cortland here, or Dan Abrams versus Prof. Eugene Volokh from the UCLA Law School here.  Prof. Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School and Prof. William Van Alstyne from the Duke University Law School - both first-class constitutional law scholars - also take the latter view of Miller.  If we're going to be NPOV, we have to acknowledge that the meaning of U.S. v. Miller regarding the extent, if any, of an individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is less than clear and the subject of significant scholarly and judicial (split circuits) debate.  Back to what I was saying in my previous comment, I don't think it'll be too hard to locate sources pointing out the uniqueness of Parker v. DC in striking down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.  I'll see what I can find.  PubliusFL 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the consensus among credible neutral 2A experts is that at the federal level the 'right' is somewhere between purely individual and purely collective, tending towards the collective. And that I favor saying this over the POV illusion that there are really 'two models'. SaltyBoatr 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A few decades ago, the consensus in academia was clearly leaning toward the collective side. In recent years things have shifted to more of a balance -- see Sanford Levinson (as discussed above) and Laurence Tribe as some of the big names in con law who have weighed in on the individual (i.e. Second Amendment has some significant individual right component) side.  But you're quite right that portraying the issue as individual v. collective is something of an oversimplification or false dichotomy. PubliusFL 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But, as you allude, the vast majority of gun and militia regulations are not subject to the 2A, because the 2A has very little effect on state and local jurisdictions. The importance of the "list of 'current precedents'" in the article, in my opinion, is to communicate the fact that local and state juridictions are allowed by the 2A to write thousands of gun and militia regulations almost at whim.  SaltyBoatr 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with listing all those types of regulations under "current judicial precedents" is that it is not clear from the sources in the article whether they have all been examined by an appellate court and actually found to be permissible under the 2A. There's no binding precedent if an appellate court hasn't actually ruled on the issue.  For most of these regulations, to the best of my knowledge, it's more accurate to say "no one has said we can't adopt any kind of regulations" than to say "the courts have said we can do this." PubliusFL 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * State courts? How could State courts rule on the 2A?  Or, Federal courts?  How could federal courts rule on state laws?  (I guess you are thinking that the 2A might someday be incorporated?)  The vast majority of gun regulations are State or local.  If your problems is with the word 'precedent' I agree it isn't precise enough, and could see using a more accurate word, status quo or some such.  SaltyBoatr 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a POV push going on about Parker, which is of limited interest, because D.C. laws are federal, not of the States. And, based on my reading the news I don't see it likely that Parker will be the nucleus that will over-turn Miller; mostly because strategically, pro-regulation politicians can simply repeal the 1976 law making the appeal of Parker pointless. For that reason, I don't see that Parker needs much more attention in the article than Emerson. SaltyBoatr 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Parker is notable for actually striking down a law, as the Emerson discussion of the Second Amendment has occasionally been criticized as "dicta" (you don't have to find an individual right in the 2A to uphold a gun control law). But like you say, the D.C. law is not a state law, and the majority in Parker explicitly stated that they weren't gonna touch the incorporation issue, so even if Parker is upheld by the Supreme Court it's a big jump from there to getting state and local regulations struck down. PubliusFL 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More Lead rewording
The old lead said "declares the necessity for a 'well regulated militia'..."

My new edit reads "declares the purpose of a 'well regulated militia'..."

No other changes have been made.

The first is not impartial, as it begins to introduce an interpretation of the militia as a necessity, when in fact the text of the amendment merely declares the purpose of a militia "being necessary to the security of a free State", it does not say directly that the militia itself is a necessity, only that it is a necessity "for the security of a free State." Anything further is interpretation, so please refrain and let the text of the Amendment speak for itself. Thank you. Trisweb 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. If we don't consider having a free State a necessity, then the Militia is no longer a necessitiy.  Since such a rationalization is in no way possible for the founding fathers, it seems clear that a Militia was considered a necessity. Jimberg98 16:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2A does not declare the purpose of a 'well regulated militia', but states it is necessary. This is a statement of necessity, not of purpose. Have reverted. (Incidentally, this was arrived at through consensus previously. Yaf 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment, and I understand that previous consensus has been reached, but previous consensus is not necessarily correct. I highly disagree with the impartiality of the wording as it stands and wish to discuss this further.  In addition, by separating the clauses into two separate assertions (the militia statement, and the right to bear arms statement) the lead has already done the work of interpreting that they are separate, which is already biased and subjective. This needs to be changed. I take no side on the actual issue, I only care that this article remain impartial. Trisweb 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a statement of necessity, but that does not preclude that the wording states that necessity in a way that the amendment does not, and adds further viewpoint bias to the sentence. It is in fact different to state that a "militia is a necessity" and that "being necessary to the security of a free State, a militia...". The two are not interchangeable. In addition I still contest the separation, and I put forth that the lead should include that the interpretation of the amendment if of great debate.Trisweb 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this is approximately what I have in mind:
 * Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The interpretation of the amendment is a subject of much debate.
 * I believe this is the best possible lead to this article, sticking to the wording of the actual amendment itself, refraining from interpreting, and declaring the main subject of the article which is in fact the controversy and not the amendment itself. Note I have kept the separation of the militia and the prohibition, though I still believe that separation is in itself an interpretation, because I cannot think of a way to make it impartial and say it in such a way that it is left to the reader to determine whether the RKBA is by purpose of militia or not. Currently it is reasonably worded, so I'll keep it.
 * Please comment, thank you. Trisweb 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The opening you inserted was
 * Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the purpose of "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.".
 * The current opening is:
 * Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
 * This was arrived at previously through consensus through intentionally including ambiguity over which clause or part of the amendment takes priority, since taking sides in this ambiguity is definitely POV, as you agree. Furthermore, it was arrived at specifically to keep the dependency of the two parts as intentionally ambiguous as possible.  The dual construct of "declares the necessity" and "prohibits infringement" reduces the implied relationship between the two parts better than by using the construct which you propose, which appears to link the two parts more formally.  According to some, the first part is a statement of why the second part exists;  in contrast, according to others, the second part is the underlying purpose, with the first part being merely a good reason for the second. Your proposed change is yet another position and would elevate both of the parts to the same importance, which is yet another POV. We should intentionally keep the present ambiguity to keep the lede NPOV. This way, the two parts can be either 1) part A is more important than part B, 2) part A is less important than part B, or 3) the two parts are of equal importance.  Incidentally, after having gone through the original consensus building to arrive at the present intro, I believe that the Founding Fathers did much the same, intentionally including ambiguity, just to get the Second Amendment passed back in 1791 :-)  Those guys were rather clever!  Yaf 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Trisweb makes good points, that I don't see as yet refuted by Yaf. The suggested Trisweb lead more precisely follows the wording of the 2A and therefore is more impartial.  By the way, per the Constitution, the SCOTUS sets the gold standard of interpretation of the 2A and there is little ambiguity with them about the 'purpose' which trumps our petty POV opinions.  SaltyBoatr 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks-- if I could I'd simply put the full text of the amendment in the lead, but that leads to more debate about where commas should be placed, etc, and I don't want to get into that. I think the way I've worded it above is the closest one can get without the full quote.Trisweb 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yaf, I'm not arguing the difference between the two interpretations nor for adding a third, simply that as worded now it's actually less ambiguous than mine above, and in fact includes predefined interpretation. I believe saying "declares the necessity of a militia" is not ambiguous, and is badly biased enough to require a rewording. I only mean to make the lead more accurate to the actual 2A text in any possible interpretation.  I am still divided about how to word it to reduce the implied association between the two parts, but instead of trying to word it this way or that way, why don't we just say it right out that the relationship between declaration and the prohibition statements are ambiguous and up to interpretation? (Also, apologies for my own POV, but regarding the founding fathers, I'm not sure any of them thought it was ambiguous or even went through this thought process... if you think like an 18th century person and don't read too much into it, there's only one reading of the sentence that makes sense. It's not their fault that we've lost the ability to intelligently read and interpret the English language.)
 * I'm also beginning to think that we should word the lead even more ambiguously, something like:
 * Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, deals with the right of the people to "keep and bear arms." The interpretation of the amendment is a subject of much debate.
 * Simple, short, NPOV, true, unarguable. Further detail about the amendment and the controversy can be read after the amendment text itself is presented in the next section and in more encyclopedic, longer ways. But for the first sentence of the article, it is most important that we keep it simple and NPOV, and maybe that's the best way... Thank you both for your discussion. Trisweb 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please accept my retraction of my original edit (in "The opening you inserted was" above). It was not as well thought out as the ones presented here, so if you would be so kind as to forget about it :-) Thank you.Trisweb 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving out the militia part is likely to be perceived as being even more POV :-) Your second proposal above, namely
 * Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." 
 * upon further review and reflection is actually quite good, and is better than the current lede. I suggest we use it.  Comments? Yaf 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that leaving out any reference to militia is probably bad, and also agree that the lead (or lede? I don't know) I suggested as reprinted directly above is quite good, and I vote we use it (with or without the clause about the debate; though I prefer it with as I first presented it). More comments welcome, let's give people a chance before we change it. Trisweb 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It never hurts to ask, how about this: Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  Accurate and neutral.  SaltyBoatr 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This last one is not neutral. It presupposes the non-incorporation of the 2A, which may or may not be true. This non-incorporation was true in the late 19th Century, but lots of other Amendments were not incorporated then, either, that have subsequently been ruled to have been incorporated by the 14th Amendment.  Since we haven't had a SCOTUS ruling on the 2A since Miller, I don't like this one. It presupposes that the status of incorporation vs. non-incorporation from circa 1873 still applies.   I still prefer the version of Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  Yaf 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Keep as stated. Trisweb 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the non-incorporation of the 2A credibly disputed? Can you cite this? SaltyBoatr 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was sort of hoping for an answer to my question. SaltyBoatr 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Patience, grasshopper :-) All supreme court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment predates Due Process incorporation doctrine except US v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (US 1939), which was a challenge to a federal law unrelated to incorporation.  Incorporation of Second Amendment was rejected in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  However the 1968 case of Duncan v. Louisiana, in dicta regarding the interpretation of the 1937 case of Palko v. Connecticut, indicates that all Amendments dealing with "ordered liberty" should be regarded as being incorporated according to the majority concurrence by Justice Black, and that the Second Amendment pertains to "ordered liberty".   According to this case, the 2A has been incorporated in essence, only that there hasn't been a case before the SCOTUS in which to declare it formally.  Yaf 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you write is not credibly attributed. Also, I find it wildly unbelievable that, with 20,000 local gun laws presently in effect by some reports, that no case found a way to the SCOTUS.  That incorporation of the 2A might someday occur involves reading a crystal ball.  SaltyBoatr 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reply. You say 'in essence' which are weasel words often used to hide original research.  Which page and paragraphs of your citation contain your attribution?  I looked and couldn't see it.  SaltyBoatr 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote 'hasn't declared it formally'. That amounts to 'hasn't declared it' because 'informally' doesn't meet WP:V. Something of this importance requires strict credible attribution, show me something like a law school text book that says that the 2A has been incorporated. SaltyBoatr 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we please drop this debate in the interest of getting the NPOV lead up? The argument on the incorporation can take place after that. Leaving out "Congress" only makes it more ambiguous and closer to the original amendment text, which is a good thing. If and when anyone finds proof of Incorporation, they may add the word back in, but the burden of proof lies on the one who wishes to add a detail (SaltyBoatr in this case), not the one who wants to leave it out with reasonable doubt and no detrimental effect. In a few hours I will add the text without "Congress" unless definitive proof of Incorporation has been given (as agreed upon by the two of you, I don't even know about this stuff, I'm just being a mediator...) Thanks. 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is exactly about the issue of NPOV. The second sentence of the article Bill of Rights reads "These amendments limit the powers of the federal government...". You mentioned the desirability of 'closer to the original', and with the SCOTUS concept of incorporation not appearing until 1897, including the word 'Congress' or 'federal government' is indeed more true to the original. It is only in relatively recent modern times has the argument that the 2A applies more broadly been contrived. Indeed, that concept is not adopted at all, and is at best hypothetical and is decidedly not mainstream. Leaving the word 'Congress' out of the lead is not neutral. You asked for burden of proof, I see this ''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. '' text by the SCOTUS, in CRUIKSHANK and that powerful precedence though old, still stands.SaltyBoatr 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said I'm not fit to argue the case of either, but what you say makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I'm now perfectly willing to have the word Congress there, but without still makes it NPOV I think, since it may be inferred from the BoR that it's Congress as the subject of 'shall not be infringed' and it's a concept that can be discussed in further detail in the article if necessary. Out of curiosity, why do you believe it's so important to have in there? trisweb (Talk) 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Personally, as an editor, I am an WP:Policy idealist and take the WP:NPOV policy very serious. Especially when I see that certain WP articles attract revisionists as a soapbox and battleground, I then doggedly push for the neutral middle.  I see that the role of WP is to accurately portray the 2A, not the popular myth of the 2A, or a hypothesis about a hoped for incorporation of the 2A which is favored by the extreme fringe.  Constantly since 1789, per the only authority who has any say, (the Supreme Court), the 2A restricts only the federal Congress.  SaltyBoatr 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, using your version. trisweb (Talk) 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a further note, the version with Congress will never be wrong, since the 2A most certainly always prohibits congress from infringement. Further information on whether or not it is incorporated can be discussed elsewhere. trisweb (Talk) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Inflection versus capitalization
I made a minor edit to the description of the two versions of the text of the amendment. The "inflection" does not vary between the two versions, as far as I can see. What varies is the capitalization and punctuation.

"Inflection" means, in the case of a noun for example, the declension of the noun. In the case of a verb, "inflection" means the variance based on the conjugation of the verb. I didn't catch any variances in nouns or verbs (in connection with declensions or conjugations) between the two versions of the text. I have never thought of variances in capitalization of a noun as a form of declension -- but I will stand to be corrected, if someone can show me I'm wrong. Famspear 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Precedents (material added by another editor)
An anoymous user added some new material at the beginning of the section on "Precedents." This material looks like POV commentary and possibly original research to me. However, I did not delete the material completely; I instead deleted the portions that appeared to me to be the strongest POV, and added a citation tag and some syntax tightening and corrections on spelling. Famspear 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually still think it's fairly hard POV, and doesn't have much to do with the Precedents. The fact that it needs a citation pretty much gives that away... no one knows if the Founding Fathers believed it was a natural right, or simply being "necessary for the security of a free state" (which is what they wrote). Either way, it's discussed elsewhere in the article and need not be in the Precedents section, so I'm going to go ahead and revert it back to its former state. Thanks for your work in trying to incorporate it though :-) trisweb (Talk) 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this section is complete fallacy. Claiming that the idea of an armed militia started in England, or that the second ammendment was modelled on English patterns is clearly ridiculously ill-informed. One can go back at least as far as Classical Greece for examples of manditory militia training and requirement to own arms. I really don't know what to do about editing it, aside from the deletion of most of it. I'll come back in a few weeks, and if nobody else has handled it, I'll see what I can do siranui

Modern Interpretations section
This is a highly suspect and poorly sourced section. It needs work. All of these questions floating around! My oh my!

Questions? Sez who.

This lacks factual information, and reads more like the prologue to a political screed. Let's get to work on it. paul klenk talk 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

GREAT research resource
I used this page many years ago to do research for my high school debate team. It's a goldmine of information. There are hundreds of law reviews. It's not often that you can hyperlink to peer reviewed academic research like that. NB it's on a pro-gun website (David Kopel is a libertarian scholar) so there's comparatively much less on the other side, but most of the articles are themselves balanced and fact-oriented. Maybe we can bring this article up to FA status. :) --Smtomak 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)