Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 7

Article split outs, size trim.
Article size is presently 117kb 97kb (in excess of the 32kb max size guideline). Looking at the article I see one section (Early commentary about the right to bear arms in state courts. ) that is not directly on topic (the Federal 2A), and rather is on the topic: State based 'Rights to Bear Arms'. I suggest that this be moved to a new article Right to Bear Arms (United States) Also, much of the text in the Miller, Presser and Cruikshank sections could be moved to associated articles, United States v. Miller, Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Cruikshank with short summaries and 'see main article' links from here. -- SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. -- Arthur (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am OK with this idea. Yaf (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Large sections of this article could also be incorporated into the existing article, Firearm case law, along with some of the extensive quotations. I propose to move a large chunk of the caselaw into that article and summarize it in this one unless anyone objects.Bryantheis (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Arthur (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another proposed intro
Here's another intro proposal:

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s 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 meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited why the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from from infringing upon this right: the dominant view is that the Second Amendment is limited to federal jurisdiction, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some contend that it extends to state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has never ruled whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation.

Another major point of contention is whether it is an individual federal right to personal firearms or a collective  State militia right: the prevailing view and court precedence favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretation is supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right exists for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, or is and why has reasonable federal regulation allowable  been allowed ). All federal courts have found that reasonable regulation is allowable, while an outright ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller.


 * Those who can assist on better or more thorough references, etc., please do so. I'd love to hear comments on this. I've tried to take into account comments from others, especially SaltyBoatr who has been the most active in discussing this. I've also taken into account WP:INTRO and the current intros to the first 10 amendments (only one of them, #1 currently mentions the "federal" vs "state" interpretation). Thanks to all. Please let me know what you think and let's finally get this done. Arthur (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is an improvement over the existing intro, I sincerely appreciate your effort to weigh contrary points of view and I support replacing the existing intro with this improved version. .  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have marked my suggested improvements in orange . SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will give this a try:

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s 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 meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right: The dominant view is that the Second Amendment is limited to federal jurisdiction, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some contend that it extends to state jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has never ruled whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation.

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right: the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed .)  All federal courts have found that reasonable regulation is allowable, while an outright ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Comments? Yaf (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yafs suggestions look mostly good. A few quibbles: The first ABA footnote describes the 2A as not merely disputed, but also misinformed and misunderstood.  That is why I favor the word 'misunderstood' in addition to 'disputed' in the second sentence.  And, actually I favor calling attention to ABA description of 'misinformation' surrounding gun politics and the 2A, but am willing to omit this in the interest of calming POV tension.  Also, I favor omitting the last sentence of the second paragraph for no serious reason, but only in the interest of brevity as I see the sentence as a bit redundant. I object strongly to the blurring together of 'state right' with 'federal right' resulting from Yaf's omission of the word 'federal' in the third paragraph (As both Emerson or Parker/Heller are federal cases.)  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Like this... SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s 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 meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most  misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled that whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right: The dominant view of the court is that the Second Amendment is limited to federal jurisdiction, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend that it extends to state jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has never ruled whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation.

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual federal right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right: the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed .)  All federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright  firearm ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller.


 * Comments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving to main page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Freerepublic
Free Republic is trying to update this article. FYI www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1931395/posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.108.19 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the commas
Is anyone aware of authority that holds that the first or third commas would actually *change* the meaning of 2A if they existed/did not exist? In other words: we know that there's a debate as to whether or not they should be there, but does any authoritative scholar think that it matters? I haven't been able to find anything, and the debate on this issue (in archives 5 and 6 of this talk page) has been inconclusive. I propose to shorten the "commas" section by eliminating the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs, and condensing the first and fifth paragraphs, and adding a sentence that says that the presence or absence of commas does not affect the meaning of 2A.Bryantheis (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support SaltyBoatr (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.Bry9000 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Intro
Since the intro is now seemingly agreed upon, I've archived the discussion. Arthurrh (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought we were still discussing the exact wording. But, whatever.  Have made two minor changes in the intro, changing two words  "that --> whether" and "federal individual right" to "individual right".  If this is an issue for anyone, lets discuss it.  Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no one had said anything for days, and SaltyBoatr had already changed it. We can restore the discussion if it's needed. I think the changes you made were good. Arthurrh (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't chimed in in several days, but I think the current status represents a pretty good compromise too. If I were to quibble with anything, it would be the word "misunderstood."  It doesn't add much to "disputed" except to create the impression that the article should be read with the understanding that one of the major views of the 2A is wrong from the article's perspective.  That's technically true (they can't all be right, so the non-right views must be based on misunderstanding), but it invites the reader to guess which viewpoint the article holds to be correct.  The subsequent quotation from the ABA report suggests that Wikipedia is adopting the ABA's POV on the 2A. PubliusFL (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's why "misunderstood" wasn't in my original proposal. Arthurrh (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Misunderstood is a pretty important word there, for me at least. The source also says 'misinformed', and I would also favor including article coverage of the large USA societal disinformation "POV push" in the last three decades.  FWIW, I am presently reading the Malcolm book, and see that the 'precedent' section seems to include original research vis a vis Malcolm.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you see that it's only "disinformation," "misinformed," or "misunderstood" if you start from the perspective of assuming that a particular POV is right? The article shouldn't do that, therefore we should be very cautious in characterizing any of the major theories as "misunderstood," "misinformed," or based on "disinformation." PubliusFL (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See ref, quote: There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue." My opinion is not OR, but rather based on that sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the reference. My objection is based on NPOV, not NOR.  You can find sources on all sides saying that the other side's arguments are dishonest and/or stupid, but NPOV prevents us from basing Wikipedia articles on such claims.  The fact that side A says that side B uses "misinformation" and "misunderstands" the Constitution is based on side A's POV.  The NPOV approach is to acknowledge and describe the dispute and disagreement, not to accept such characterizations.  PubliusFL (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about 'side A versus side B'.  Are you questioning the quotation of the ABA, hosted on the guncite website as not neutral?  Either or both sides might be misunderstanding.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly do challenge the neutrality of the ABA on the issue. The ABA has long opposed the individual right interpretation of the 2A, and openly lobbied for stricter federal gun control legislation.  They are not an impartial referee here. PubliusFL (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting the opening sentence of the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, Harvard University Press, 1994: "The right of the ordinary citizens to possess weapons is the most extraordinary, most controversial, and least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists."  (emphasis added) The fact that the 2A is often misunderstood seems to meet WP:V.  Do you have a problem with the neutrality of Prof. Malcolm? By my estimation, she weighs in at the far 'pro-gun' extreme of the POV neutral balance point.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am perplexed that the two issues in the following unsigned message seem to have been ignored in the now-archived discussion (Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)): The amendment only states that the people shall not have its right infringed, not the individual. Furthermore, the vast majority of legal precedent has interpreted the militia clause to be a qualifying clause, so that the second amendment is only applicable under such conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) [/i]
 * The first issue is not one I have heard before, but the second is of paramount importance and quite directly contradicts the wording of the first sentence of the current intro. I hold to this view, and thus am offended that only one view is presented in the intro, that view being that the amendment states two different things instead of stating one thing on condition of another, which it seems quite plainly to do. Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to share your personal opinion. And, so much of this article is devoted to promoting the various personal opinions.  That tension is biased by pervasive Textualist and Originalist premises which permeates the article.  Why ignore the traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation of private use and ownership of weapons?  As Jack Rakove asks:  "If the adopters had the same evidence available to them that we possess today, would they place greater weight on the speculative danger of tyranny, ... Or would they agree that pressing problems of the present warrants placing greater emphasis on the police power of the states?"  In other words, I think the article needs less textualism and more contextualism to hold a neutral balance.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The view of which part of the amendment supersedes the other is a POV. Currently, the lede is worded to take neither POV (whether the right to bear arms is protected from infringement and a militia is also a "good thing" that the right to bear arms supports, or whether there is a need for a militia, and, only for this purpose, probably collectively, only, the right to bear arms is protected against infringement.)  It is not for us as editors to pick one POV over the other, but, instead, to present as balanced a lede (and article) as possible.  As for the details contained in the article, because it is necessary for the article to contain reliable sources, more textualism is likely to be more appropriate, instead of placing an emphasis on contextualism that attempts to spinmeister towards any particular POV.  Personally, I believe that the founding fathers focused on tyranny the most, having just thrown off the tyrannical King George and his minions, instead of focusing on any particular pressing problems that some perceive to exist in, say, 2008.  I believe that the article needs solid reliable sources, with an emphasis on historical commentary, over any attempt to sway readers' opinions through appeals to contextualism appropriate for 2008.  Yaf (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the Rakove article, which takes patience (it is long and dense), but Jack Rakove makes a compelling argument as to why excess reliance on originalism and textualism does not fit with a policy of WP:V. Simply put, the use of snippet quotes from historical commentary has very often been exploited out of context to push a modern political agenda.  This modern political agenda conveniently ignores the fact that the framers accepted as fundamental a  traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation; which is at odds with the modern 'right of insurrection' hypothesis.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With all that we still need to keep in mind that the goal of wikipedia is not to present the "correct" view of a contentious issue such as the 2A, but rather to present an unbiased article with inclusion of the various arguments. Attempts to say which method of interpreting the 2A are correct simply don't belong here other than inclusion as yet another POV in the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally get the WP:V "it is not about truth" concept and goal of Wikipedia. My point is that the Textualist and Originalist approach to the 2A is vastly over represented in the article.  The Contextualist POV is much under represented.  It is a question of finding the neutral balance point.  Have you read the Rakove article?   See for instance section 6.2, 6.2.1->6.2.4 'The gun rights debate'.  That section is heavily skewed towards the originalist and textualist methodology, with severely imbalanced POV.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to the Introduction. The reference to U.S. Court of Appeals decisions is now a footnote (which now includes a Ninth Circuit decision which differs sharply with the other two decisions. None of these changes affects the substance of the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr has reverted my above described edits. He claims that there should no changes to the Introduction of this article. Is he correct? If not, I should be permitted to make non-vandalizing edits. If he correct, then some sort of warning should be placed above the Introduction so people know not to edit it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hold that changes to the intro must be by consensus, there has been far too many edit wars over this sensitive introduction to engage in changes there without working first on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does a detailed discussion of division between the circuit courts need to be included in the intro? That detail, if verifiable and neutral, belongs in the article down below if at all.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposed change has major WP:POV problems because it fails to recognize that most of the circuit courts presently favor the collective interpretation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want, I will add more Court of Appeals decisions. The current Introduction does not cite any case that follows the "collective interpretation." If changes to the Introduction are only to occur via consensus on this Talk page, then a warning stating that should be added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the intro is the right place for a detailed accounting of the rulings of the various circuit courts. Regarding consensus, especially for sensitive articles prone to edit war like this one, please see here WP:CON. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the introduction reading "with the majority of circuit courts favor the collective interpretation" (however it may be worded). It's quite clear that this is no longer the case, as proven in more recent cases. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you reading that says this? WP:V sourcing says otherwise, like here and I could provide many more.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The earlier version said the following:

"Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia"''.

The current version does not claim which interpretation is supported by "Most" federal courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (undenting) (edit conflicted) United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite sourcing about 'most' please? I cite here[] that most meet WP:V standards. Your assertion appears unfounded. Also, pending resolution, I have added a NPOV tag to the article, it is a shame we must skip the step of working a consensus on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, where it states "the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons...regardless of whether the person is then actually a member of the militia" <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And your source also says (see bottom of page) that the fifth circuit stands alone, in other words, most circuit courts hold otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do federal courts not matter? Why not sum it up by stating "Circuit and federal courts are in disagreement over the interpretation regarding collective and individual rights...." etc. Reword it to make it sound better, and a la fixed! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedent error
King Henry III, the grandson of Henry II, signed the Assize of Arms in 1252 and not 1553 as stated in the article. Rkm3612 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gay references in article
The references to gays in the article seems irrelevant to me. I have removed the references once, but they were restored. Instead of getting into an edit war, I am posting my feelings here. Just because a couple of websites refer to gays regarding the Second Amendment does not make gay rights relevant to an article about the Second Amendment. Gay rights and the Second Amendment are separate issues. The gay references in this article should be removed. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I strongly disagree. Two reasons, 1) It is well sourced.  2) If the 2A is about the federal government not infringing the right of people in the states to belong to state militias (as most of us agree) then when the federal government prohibit a subset of the people (the gay) from participating in state militia upon federal call up is 100% relevant to an article about the 2A.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most people believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not to join a state militia. The fact that something is "well sourced" does not make it relevant to an article.  If I added a well sourced section about the NFL to this article, it still wouldn't belong in this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we all know that the 'individual right' is subject to debate and opinion is mixed. Still, I think that virtually all scholars agree that, at the least, the 2A prohibits the federal government from infringing state militias.   In addition, there is the much debated question about an 'individual right' to firearms, but that is above and beyond the issue that the federal government is not allowed to infringe the state's militias.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Read Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not affect these clauses that allow the Congress or the President. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, you prove my point. Funny that Congress called it the Dick Act.   The fact remains that the issue of whether gays are constitutionally entitled to serve in the National Guard is 'on topic' and is well sourced.   Did you read the U&M ref?     SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The question of whether gays can be prohibited from serving in a State militia, or U.S. Armed Forces for that matter, sounds more like an Equal Protection Clause issue. The Second Amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to be a member of any State militia or any of the U.S. Armed Forces. --SMP0328. (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2A does not guarantee membership in any State militia, even in the 'unorganized' militia? Many reliable sources disagree with you, yet you are entitled to your own opinion; but not to edit it into the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the U&M ref? SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which one of your footnotes is the U&M ref? --SMP0328. (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion about the 'gay' paragraph in the article right? The U&M footnote is the first of the three footnotes of the 'gay' paragraph.  If you want to discuss this further, please read all three of those footnotes, then re-read WP:Policy, and come back to discuss the merits and relevancy if needed.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That article refers to the Second Amendment under the "collective right" reading of the Amendment. For now, I will leave your additions to the article in place.  Whether they will stay in the article will depend on the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.  If the Court rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then your additions will no longer be relevant to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you haven't read Uviller and Merkel because to summarize the U&M hypothesis into a phrase, "collective right" isn't accurate. It would be better described as "How the second amendment fell silent", or perhaps, "an individual right gone dormant".  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Challenge
A challenge has been made regarding this article's neutrality. Anyone who feels this article is biased or neutral should post in this thread. It would be better for this dispute to be resolved quickly. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The POV tag could be removed if we could use the prior consensus introduction. Your recent unilateral change is not neutral because  it falsely attempts to suggest an 'even' split of the circuit courts.  Please cite sources in your defense.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The current wording only states there is disagreement; how does this imply an 'even' split? The current NPOV looks better than before the change. Yaf (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Referring to what most circuit courts say implies that the fact that more federal courts ruled one way makes that way the right way. That is a POV. An interpretation of the Constitution does not become correct merely because more courts have ruled that way as opposed to another way. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you read this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the version of the Introduction you want. That's the version that refers to what "More" courts have ruled. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per good solid sourcing, most of the circuit courts favor a collective interpretation. The pro-gun POV wants this fact suppressed. The suppression of solid sourcing causes the NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This text is based on data taken from meetings held in 2001 and 2002, long before all the more recent cases listed in the present footnotes that have gone the other way. Current cited data should be favored over stale data. Yaf (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which data? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, there are multiple sources supporting both sides (see "pro-individual" source: . It's best to leave the introduction by stating there is a disagreement over "collective" or "individual" rights, which can clearly be seen by the different sources provided here. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi  23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are talking of a different debate, popular opinion. The separate question at hand is the current status of court opinion.  There is no doubt that "nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question."  A 9:2 ratio justifies the use of the word 'most'.  To omit that word causes a NPOV problem.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from above) Do federal courts not matter? Why not sum it up by stating "Circuit and federal courts are in disagreement over the interpretation regarding collective and individual rights...." etc. Reword it to make it sound better, and a la fixed! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking of federal circuit courts, the 5th with Emerson, and now the DC circuit with Parker. The remaining nine federal circuit courts adhere to a collective interpretation.  That is why the word 'most' is necessary.  Leaving the word 'most' out creates a POV push that there is more disagreement in the federal court than there is in WP:V reality.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a section that notes that most of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have ruled 9-2 in favor of the "collective right" interpretation. So, despite the changes to the Introduction, the information that SaltyBoatr desires to be in the article is in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And, the intro remains to have a NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems fairly NPOV to me. Simply states the disagreement between courts. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"> Mønobi 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the courts hold a states rights view. This is well established WP:V fact. The pro-gun POV seeks to diminish this fact by characterizing the disagreement as merely a disagreement between courts when it is not even close to being an even disagreement. This pro-gun POV push and is at the crux of the NPOV problem. The overwhelming number of courts favor the States rights view, and just two courts have taken an outlying position of an individual rights view. The intro should accurately summarize the important points of the article, and the article states that 'most circuit courts' hold the states rights view. See here for my sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SaltyBoatr that it is accurate and reasonable to describe the balance of the circuit courts -- the fact is that "most circuit courts" reject the kind of individual rights view described by its proponents as the "Standard Model." My caveat is that the "most circuit courts" phrase came before discussion of the "modified collective rights" theory, so the article basically said that most circuits take the simple collective rights approach, a couple take the individual rights approach, and none at all have accepted the modified collective rights approach.  I'm not sure that that's accurate.  I'd prefer to say that most circuit courts hold either the collective or the modified/sophisticated collective view. See, for example, U.S. v. Parker, a 10th Circuit case stating that the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits "have all adopted a 'sophisticated collective rights model.'" PubliusFL (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in.  It would be helpful if you could point to the WP:V sourcing at the basis of your opinion, which I would like a chance to read so I may better understand you.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that most federal courts have ruled in a particular way, does not mean that those rulings are correct. Unfortunately, many people will interpret the fact that "most" federal courts have ruled in favor of the "collective right" to mean that must be the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Centuries ago, most people thought that the Earth was flat. Despite being in the majority, they were wrong. Referring simply to a "disagreement" is accurate and avoids the misunderstanding that can occur with the word "most." --SMP0328. (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please describe the sourcing behind your opinion, it appears to be original research and POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the "most" refers to a state prior to the latest cases, representing a stale viewpoint. If we said "previously, most", then that would be more neutral point of view than just saying "most" without any element of the change in the courts' views.  The fact the SCOTUS has taken on Heller after an absence of over 70 years is clearly indicative that there is disagreement which the SCOTUS intends to resolve.  The details on "most" are in the body of the article, with the time elements identified by court case dates.  Stating disagreement is a better, more NPOV way to summarize in the lede.  Yaf (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Today, it is still most, including the recent DC Circuit case. 9 circuits favor a 'militia' interpretation, and two favor an individual (subject to governmental regulation) interpretation.  The ratio of 9 to 2 is fairly described as 'most'.  Yaf, please describe what sourcing is behind your opinion, it appears both as 'original research' and as 'POV'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is challenging the fact that "most" federal courts are following the "collective right" interpretation. What Yaf and I are saying is that "most" is subject to being misunderstood. Are you of the opinion that a reasonable person could not misunderstand "most" to mean that the the federal courts in the majority must be correct in their rulings? --SMP0328. (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is in the news today. The SCOTUS is taking up this issue for the first time since 1939 to specifically address the "militia" versus "individual" interpretation.  Stating "most" implies that the SCOTUS has already ruled (they haven't), through a tacit assumption that is implying that "most" implies "correct".  That is a very POV position.  It is better simply to state that there is "disagreement", and put the details in the article (which are already in the article, down below.)  Yaf (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1939? Not true. You forget to mention 1980. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), at 65-66. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This only dealt with ruling Congress may prohibit felons from possessing firearms, affirming a long-standing intrepretation and practice that again dates back to Miller in 1939. Felons don't serve in a well-regulated militia, generally speaking :-)  Yaf (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In 1980 the SCOTUS referred to the 2A as a 'militia' right (not an 'individual' right).  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How you and Fox News thinks the SCOTUS might rule involves speculation and predictions, and WP is not a crystal ball. There no reason in 'correct' regarding the the present status of how the circuit courts have ruled.  Correct, or not correct, how they have ruled how they have ruled. See and   for summaries of how they have ruled. Again, could you please cite your sourcing, and spare us the arguments of your personal predictions, views and opinions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is your cited source that Fox News is not a reliable source? The article I cited (the oft-labeled Fair and balanced Fox News, I might add) just says that the SCOTUS is looking into this for the first time since 1939, and additionally mentions numerous amicus briefs that support the individual interpretation.  Where is your cited source that states that "Most" is still the proper interpretation, and that the SCOTUS is not looking at this for the first time since 1939 to resolve the "individual" versus "militia" interpretation, and that we should mislead readers to the state that existed prior to the SCOTUS taking this case to decide the "disagreement" when "most" was the proper statement?  Yaf (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said Fox News is not WP:RS, but only that when they predict what will occur in the future, that it is a prediction. The intro paragraph describes what presently is the status quo in the present tense, not what might be at some point in the future so the Fox News prediction does not pertain.  And, I already gave you my source, look here.  If you don't like 'most' we can say "by a 9:2 ratio", but 'most' is a more concise way to write it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the lede is to summarize the present state, not belabor an historical state of affairs. If we put your proposed "9:2 ratio" wording in the lede, then, for balance, we would have to state something along the lines that "...but recent cases have engendered a shift in opinion necessitating a review for the first time since 1939 by the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the disagreement that has arisen among the district courts, as well as to resolve the shift in opinion that recently has favored an "individual" rights interpretation instead of the historical "collective" rights interpretation previously favored by District Courts".  This would be needed for NPOV balance with a "9:2" statement, but such wording would be way too lengthy for the lede.  Why not just state there is "disagreement" and let the body of the article (already written) flesh out the details of the historical 9 versus 2 historical results. An introduction is supposed to summarize the state of affairs, not push an anti-RKBA agenda POV.  "Most" and even "9:2" wording would be pushing this into an unbalanced POV.Yaf (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered your question many times. Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room here. Pro gun activist editors are trying to presage the SCOTUS Heller ruling, and predicting the future is inappropriate in WP. Solidly verifiable (see cites above, and below), the present status of rulings is that virtually all courts, and certainly 'most', hold a states rights interpretation of the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Over the years, 11 of the 13 federal appellate districts have held that 2nd Amendment rights are collective, pertaining, as the Constitution says, to the maintenance of "a well ordered militia." Recently, however, a court in the District of Columbia struck down that jurisdiction's handgun ban, ruling that the 2nd Amendment confers individual rights to gun ownership. The case -- District of Columbia vs. Heller -- is before the U.S Supreme Court."

- Tim Rutton


 * If we were "pro gun activist editors", wouldn't we be trying to make the article have a pro-RKBA POV. Wouldn't we remove any reference to a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment? We haven't done that. You're reference to us as "pro gun activist editors" is simply hyperbole. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Consider rather the problem of Systemic bias, and WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  Editors with a pro-gun bias have a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article.  Notice that this article is part of WikiProject Firearms, and not part of WikiProject Gun control.  The issue of systemic bias affecting the neutrality of this article is real, and editors must take this bias into account when determining the neutrality balance point.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is your sourcing for "[e]ditors with a pro-gun bias having a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article"? As for Wikiprojects, if you want one for Gun Control then you should take that up at a forum from which such a Wikiproject could result. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see it. Just review the revision history.  Such as; here is one specific instance, anecdotal I know but real none-the-less. Here is another specific incident.  I could cite many more.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * None of what you cite proves that "[e]ditors with a pro-gun bias having a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article." The first cite shows the edits I made to the Introduction. I guess that means that since you feel that my edits were friendly to the "individual right" interpretation, my edits must come from "a pro-gun bias." The second cite only proves that I feel you have an anti-RKBA bias. The third cite shows what Yaf's name represents. The last cite shows, at most, that Free Republic (a conservative website) expressed a desire on November 28, 2007 to edit the article. I'm not from Free Republic. So you still have not proven that "[e]ditors with a pro-gun bias hav[e] a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article." BTW, what's your definition of bias? If you use that term broadly, and if Yaf and I have "pro-gun bias," then you must have an anti-gun bias. Wouldn't it be nicer to say each of us has a different opinion, rather than a "bias"? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am using the term 'bias' in the sense of Systemic bias. Neither you nor I should edit our personal bias, but rather we should refer to a broad spectrum of the most reliable sources, and determine the neutral balance point of opinions of these sources and then seek to edit the article to the balance point among that reliable sourcing. As opposed to a balance point of the personal opinions of self selected editors with a tendency towards being pro-gun.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of your sourcing comes from the New York Times. That newspaper is known for having ideological biases (e.g. ). So I wouldn't consider that newspaper to be a reliable source. As for a "balance point", the article currently refers to a "disagreement" among the various U.S. Courts of Appeals and later mentions that this disagreement is 9-2 in favor of a "collective right" or "state's right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are asking that this 9-2 split be mentioned twice in the article. Why does it need to be mentioned twice? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My NYT sourcing is consistent with many other sources, which I have given above, such as this book. What is your sourcing?  Are we in disagreement about whether the lead section should make mention of the the disagreement in the courts?  I presume your answer is no.  Then, we must accurately summarize the article when we put this point in the lead section.  It is inaccurate to describe a disagreement in the court as a simple disagreement, when that disagreement is that a vast majority of the court says one thing, and two isolated court cases saying another.  It is a POV error to describe that imbalance as simply a disagreement.  That is why I favor the use of the word 'most courts' believe X to describe the current status of the courts.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The NYT has a left-wing bias and in my previous post I provided sourcing for that assertion. You know that I want the Introduction to refer to a "disagreement", but I don't feel that the 9-2 split needs to be mentioned twice in the article. As I stated earlier, the fact that 9 courts rule one way and 2 rule the opposite way does not mean that the ruling of the of the 9 is correct. So how is it relevant that the "disagreement" involves a 9-2 split? Would you want the article to refer to the fact that the last two Court of Appeals rulings held that the Second Amendment referred to an individual right? If the 9-2 split is relevant, then so is that fact. I feel that the Introduction should be a synopsis of the article, hence the simple reference to a "disagreement." The details of that disagreement should be, and are, in the main body of the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hence, I placed the NPOV tag. It is relevant that most of the circuit courts hold the common view that the 2A is a collective right, I have provided at least four WP:RS references for this.  The Intro section actually does make prominent reference to the 'individual rights' Heller case, which I support, so yes, I feel the 'individual right' issue belongs in the intro.  But your uncited assertion that "the fact that the last two Court of Appeals rulings held that..." appears flatly wrong. Certainly not the last two, rather you should say "only two out of dozens of court cases have held that" would be more accurate.  It would be helpful if you bothered to cite sources for your opinions.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How my user name (Yet another fellow == YAF) and user page with a quote by Samuel Adams is interpreted as a pro-gun bias, I do not understand. Samuel Adams simply supported preserving all our rights under the constitution, including the Right to Free Speech which is inherent with making a better WP, and I agree wholeheartedly with his philosophy of protecting our rights, including others' right to free speech (SaltyBoatr's, too!).  But, does this mean that SaltyBoatr now proposes eliminating our rights under the constitution through advocating instead the "artifices of false and designing men" that Adams warned us against, to usurp our constitutional rights? This kind of paranoia, that sees a pro-gun bias behind every edit on WP, is totally off topic towards achieving a better 2A article.  Instead of allowing this discussion to drop into a name calling exercise, I propose we return to editing the 2A article with cited statements, and focus on writing a better encyclopedia.  Are we in agreement? (By the way, what is "Free Republic"?) Yaf (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Free Republic is a conservative website [freerepublic.com]. As for your proposal, I am in total agreement. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Use of the term anti-RKBA, is esoteric and indicative of a pro-gun POV. Membership in the Wikiproject Firearms is also indicative of a pro-gun interest that has been self selected.  My calling attention to this is not intended to be pejorative, but rather I am calling attention to the duty we have as editor to be aware of personal bias as part of our WP:NPOV policy obligation.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction has been discussed for a long time (see most of this talk page and at least some of its Archives). Neither side is going to convince the other of its rightness. We will simply have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller. Once that ruling is handed down, the article will have to be reformed so as to remove portions of it that are contrary to the decision, or to move those portions to a separate section. For now, the article will have to remain with its disputed status. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be no need to convince each other 'rightness' of opinion. That is the purpose of WP:V and WP:NOR.  Yet, you argue your original research opinion, such as "the fact that the last two Court of Appeals rulings held that the Second Amendment referred to an individual right" while evading requests that you cite your sourcing. Now you ask for this matter to be postponed indefinitely with your preferred unsourced version in place.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to provide sourcing and you continue to say that I am providing no sourcing. You seem to be the only person that is fighting the version of the Introduction supported by me (but not only me). We can go back and forth about this. I'm just suggesting that there be a truce until the Heller decision is handed down. At that point the Court of Appeals decisions will likely be meaningless, because the Heller decision will have trumped all of them. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You evade again. Provide your sourcing for this assertion at the crux of your argument: "the fact that the last two Court of Appeals rulings held that the Second Amendment referred to an individual right"  Also, your speculation that Heller will trump is a wild guess.  What that ruling will be requires a crystal ball.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not playing your game anymore. I don't need citations for my reasons for making an edit. If someone makes a grammar fix, do you feel that the editor should need to provide a source for the alleged grammatical error? I, and others, feel that the version of the Introduction you prefer is inferior to the current version and so we improved it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is to use the more NPOV version; have changed it to such and removed the NPOV tagline, since the issue is now addressed. (Using "Disagreement" instead of "Most". Yaf (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr has restored the POV tag. I have dated it. I recommend that none of us removed said tag. Even if you change the Introduction, don't remove the POV tag. It will only restored. It is clear that the dispute has not been resolved, so the tag is proper. With all that said, thank you Yaf for restoring the balanced version of the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have gone through and added citations on citation needed tagged statements, or have deleted long-standing tagged statements that have no cite. This action should take care of addressing the POV tag issues.  Have removed the POV tag for now; if someone disagrees, then they need to identify what is at issue, and then put the tagline back.  Thanks. Yaf (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that SaltyBoatr has re-inserted a controversial statement, "A spirited public concern and debate from this time is captured in numerous heated newspaper articles, personal diaries, and letters from this pivotal time in United States history. " and re-inserted the POV tagline.  It would be nice to get this either cited or removed, so that the POV tagline could be removed.  Yaf (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the NPOV problem with the 3rd intro paragraph, in which every statement is cited? Is there a problem with one of the cites?  Yaf (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
editprotected This dispute is over the neutrality of the article. Considering this is a NPOV dispute, could the tag please be restored to the top of the article? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Considering that an editor wants to maintain a POV tagline on this article, inserting NPOV questionable material, can we just leave the article alone? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both edits declined. This disagreement seems to be the reason for the article's protection. It will not be solved by edit requests. See WP:DR, WP:3O. Sandstein (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yaf (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I'm here in response to a plea posted on Third opinion. In my opinion, a POV tag is appropriate on an article currently under a NPOV dispute on its talk page. However, in this case the dispute is about the POV tag itself. Therefore, the article was correctly protected (regardless of whether The Wrong Version was protected) until the dispute is resolved.

I recommend you both come to an agreement on how to resolve the NPOV dispute. Then the article can be unprotected, the changes made, and there would be no need for the tag. -Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I take this to mean that you support the right of one single editor to insert material that is uncited, then force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity?  This doesn't seem right.  Shouldn't the goal be to insert only cited material, and to address POV issues, rather than permit them to exist permanently? Yaf (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yaf made the same incorrect assumption in a post on my talk page. As I replied there, the POV template does not sanction the retention of material which is not in compliance with the neutral point of view policy but identifies the existence of a particular kind of dispute and invites discussion on the article talk page, which is not protected from editing. — Athaenara  ✉  05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the correct assumption is that a single editor should be permitted to insert  material that is uncited, and use other methods to force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity?   This is an impasse. Yaf (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yaf posted again (diff) on my talk page: "'So, as long as the POV label remains, the disrupting editor is permitted to keep the disputed POV label, and no resolution can be reached, as the disrupting editor has 'won'. Hmmm. How does one address an editor that wants a POV label on an article to remain permanently, and not resolve the POV issues regarding the label itself? The disruptive editor inserted disruptive uncited material, and inserted the POV label to achieve the desired POV labeling and to keep the article perpetually tagged as POV.  This is an impasse.  Yaf (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)'" NOTE (as in the edit summary for my reply): I request that Yaf not export discussion from this page but keep it here where such discussion belongs.  — Athaenara  ✉  05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The full dialogue should be included for context: "Noticed that you put a POV tagline on this fully-protected article. So, I take this to mean that you support the right of one single editor to insert material that is uncited, then force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity?  This doesn't seem right.  Shouldn't the goal be to insert only cited material, and to address POV issues, rather than permit them to exist permanently? Yaf (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The POV template identifies the existence of a particular kind of dispute which is being discussed on an article talk page. Contrary to your stated assumption, it does not sanction the retention of material which is not in compliance with the neutral point of view policy.
 * Note also that it invites discussion of the issues on the talk page, which is not protected from editing as the article presently is. — Athaenara  ✉  05:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, as long as the POV label remains, the disrupting editor is permitted to keep the disputed POV label, and no resolution can be reached, as the disrupting editor has "won". Hmmm. How does one address an editor that wants a POV label on an article to remain permanently, and not resolve the POV issues regarding the label itself?  The disruptive editor inserted disruptive uncited material, and inserted the POV label to achieve the desired POV labeling and to keep the article perpetually tagged as POV.  This is an impasse.  Yaf (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Please re-read what I actually said.  — Athaenara  ✉  05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only read what you actually wrote :-) Argggh.  Yaf (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)"

Third opinion - second request
I'm here again, because another third opinion was requested.

Yaf: Your question is a non-sequitur.

You seem to be equating the insertion of the POV tag with the restoration of a sentence that has a fact tag. Those look like two different things to me. The POV tag is there because an editor perceives other POV problems with the article, discussed at length on this talk page above. Therefore, restoration of a tagged sentence in the same edit isn't necessarily the whole reason the POV tag is there.

The fact remains, an editor has tagged the article as having POV problems. The POV problems are discussed above, and have not been resolved. If an additional problem has been introduced by the restoration of one sentence that lacks a source, then that should be discussed also, as a separate issue.

This article is now protected so you can come up with a constructive way to change the article that resolves the problems described. I see arguing going on above, but no solutions being proposed. Asking for third opinions about an editor's motivations for tagging an article isn't going to resolve the issues. If you want a third opinion about the substance of the actual NPOV dispute, just ask, but be sure to state the positions neutrally and concisely. Also remember, Third opinion is to be used only when the dispute involves two editors. If more participate, then you need to take it to arbitration. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. An incongruity exists, but I don't believe it to be my question.  It is time to let things cool off.  If the current California-based consensus is that the article on the Second Amendment to the United States should have a perpetual  label, and never be allowed to achieve good article or other notable article status, so be it, I can understand that feeling.  I have higher hopes, though, for eventually achieving an NPOV article worthy of being a Good Article, or better :-)  Yaf (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reply presumes much that doesn't follow from what has been written:
 * The geographic location/origin of editors here is irrelevant. What does California have to do with any discussion following the third opinion request? This is treading the ragged edge of the no personal attacks policy.
 * No one has suggested or even implied that the article "should have a perpetual POV label". Be careful about assuming meanings or motivations that don't exist. Remember the guideline: Assume good faith.
 * "Never be allowed to achieve good article status"? This talk page is for the purpose of discussing the article and how to improve it. Focusing instead on the motivations of others is unproductive. Assume good faith.
 * You can understand what feeling? Feelings aren't at issue here, or shouldn't be.
 * I, too, have high hopes that an article about such an important subject can eventually reach GA or even FA status. I also agree a cooling-off period is in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, 3rd intro paragraph
The essence of the NPOV problem is the wording of the third intro paragraph. I propose we go back to the 3rd paragraph of the AliveFreeHappy version of 20:59 November 29,2007. If accepted, I would then agree to the removal of the POV tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great start on resolving the issue. That's the kind of offer I was hoping to see. Yaf, what say you?
 * If disagreement remains, please propose alternative text here. Once agreement is achieved, there will be no further need for article protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The OR clause, regarding predominant views and court precedences, is not borne by the cited facts. The current text is:
 * → Question in re third paragraph from current version of the article's text: "→ 'Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the 'collective' interpretation and 'individual' interpretation [7]. There is also a 'modified collective' view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]'"

This does not presume an OR position related to the ultimate outcome or merit of the current Heller case that is also mentioned in the article, which has changed the landscape since the proposed and now dated earlier version of the paragraph. The current paragraph recognizes the variances between the various districts, and the shift that has occurred, in that the Supreme Court of the United States has since granted cert and has not yet ruled on the interpretations and that there is disagreement among the various districts. In Supreme Court cases, the number of precedences is not a good indicator of how a ruling will come down. Using the "predomininant view" language, a reader is mislead to believe that there is no disagreement, and that the Supreme Court has not taken on resolving this disagreement. The lede should summarize the entire article, not an historical earlier view of the article. Yaf (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the third paragraph
February 2008 (current):

Line 1:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6]

Line 2:

The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation.[7]

Line 3:

There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia. [8]

November 2007 (three months ago):

Line 1:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right:[6]

Line 2:

the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia.

Line 3:

There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia. [8]

The citations (as numbered in both versions):
 * 5. the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right'', 2004-08-24
 * 6.
 * 7. United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer
 * 8. Dorf, Michael C. (2001), Findlaw-Writ

Lines 1 and 3 are the same, except for fullstop vs. colon at the end of line 1. Please explain (both of you) precisely what is acceptable/unacceptable about either version of line 2. — Athaenara ✉  14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 1: BTW, I removed POV. — Athaenara ✉  14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 2: It seems to me that the current version is adequate for introductory purposes if and only if the courts' disagreement is fully explained in a later section. — Athaenara ✉  14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)




 * The problem with the second sentence new wording compared with the Nov07 consensus wording is that the new wording gives undue weight to the pro-gun hypothesis that the courts are split roughly equally between 'collective' and 'individual' interpretations. See above, I have already written too much and to write it again would be repetitive.  For instance, I have cited using reliable sourcing that the court cases rank 176 'collective right' case rulings and only 2 'individual right' rulings.  There is a clear pro-gun POV push to give undue weight to the exceptional rulings and down play the predominant rulings.  It would also be helpful if you read the prior discussions, including those from November when extensive consensus negotiations occurred to establish the Nov07 introductory section wording.  And, the essay Reliable sources and undue weight describes well my concerns about undue weight in this application.  Systemic bias also comes into play here where in the run up to the Heller SCOTUS decision, pro-gun editors tend to be disproportionately attracted to the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the second column version of the statement in contention, i.e., "the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia" is that this makes an Original Research claim through stating a "predominant view" exists when it does not, implying that there is nothing at issue here, i.e., move along gentle reader. Likewise, the historical court precedences favored one view, whereas the more recent court precedences have favored another view.  In short, there is disagreement among the districts that has changed over time.  That is the reason that the Supreme Court has granted cert on this, to resolve the variance among the various districts.  Claiming "predominant views and court precedences favor" anything is presumptive, and is Original Research.  The most neutral point of view, and most factual, is simply to state that "The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation.[7]"  It is worth noting that full details on the historical 9 versus 2 districts that have supported different views is fully contained in the article.  Likewise, full details on the Supreme Court case Heller/Parker is also contained in the article.  Neither of these detailed sections or their contents are in dispute.  Only the summary is in dispute, in which one version stresses an Original Research claim that a "predominant view" exists, implying that there is no disagreement, whereas the other version simply states in a summary that a disagreement exists.  As editors, we should not insert our own bias into the summary, to claim a "predominant view" or older versus more recent court precedences favor a "collective" interpretation and are somehow more "correct".  Rather, a neutral, factual statement of fact, that a disagreement exists (in the sense of there being a variance among districts), with full details in the body of the article explaining the differences, as well as the details of the Supreme Court case in which this disagreement will be shortly resolved, is the proper weight for summarizing the whole body of the article. Yaf (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yaf's logic is self contradictory. He argues that the intro doesn't need the predominate view qualifier because it is 'original research' and at the same time argues that the predominate view qualifier is not needed  because it is "fully covered" in the article.  Yaf, in calling my proposed text 'original research', ignores the several reliable source citations I have made (see above).  Neither does Yaf acknowledge the irony that he is arguing that the pro-gun bias be inserted when he argues against inserting bias.  Yaf also complains of 'original research' yet his argument in his sentence four "That is the reason that the Supreme Court has granted..." appears to be entirely original research.  Yaf also doesn't acknowledge my concern of Systematic bias.  Yaf also fails to address my concern of pro-gun POV push seeking to characterize a 176-2 split as a simple disagreement of the court.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Refuting Yaf's accusation of 'original research' quote: "The Court has consistently favored a collective (militia-based) rather than an individual-based interpretation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. More than 100 federal and state appellate court decisions, dating back to a 1939 Supreme Court ruling, have held that the Second Amendment is no barrier to reasonable gun regulation enacted for the public health and safety" Dr. James Lucier America's Guns and the Second Amendment. Page 66 .  This is just one cite that states the 'predominate view' point succinctly, I have provided several others above, and could provide many more reliable cites.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that this reference is from 2006, a date that is prior to the Heller appeal and prior to the Supreme Court granting cert to resolve the disagreements. Yaf (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not universally agreed that the Miller decision interpreted the Second Amendment under a "collective right" model.  --SMP0328. (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read those two blogs before you posted them here in an attempt to bolster your argument? Your first link says: "The decision contains many other examples of Militia laws, regulations, and history which are consistent with a collective Right to Bear Arms. ... The history selected by the Court emphasized a collective right to bear arms."  And, your second link says: "Most other circuits courts had concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias."
 * Both of your links, instead of making your case, actually prove my point about predominant view of the court being collective. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is from link #33:


 * ''Did Miller have a right to keep and bear his shotgun?

''In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' 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. Certainly 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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

''The Court did not expressly rule. This question was returned to the lower court. The Court did raise the question on whether a shotgun was a weapon properly used by the militia, if a shotgun was a weapon properly used to enforce laws, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions. While the Court did not make it explicit, it would seem that if Miller's defense could establish shotguns are properly militia weapons, Miller would likely have a right to carry the shotgun.''


 * This is from link #34:

''Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.'' --SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Miller is subject to infinite possible interpretations by billions of commentators, you use a straw man argument. The actual question at hand is different: How did the courts interpret Miller?  The answer per solid WP:RS sourcing is that the courts have ruled predominately (by a ratio in excess of 100 to 2) that Miller described a 'collective right'. Therefore the 'predominate view' of the court is collective.


 * All of these discussions clearly establish that there is a disagreement among the various decisions. As stated previously, the Supreme Court is currently working to resolve the disagreements among the districts and decisions.  Does anyone have a WP:RS that states that there is no disagreement, or that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert?  If not, it seems clear that the statement that is presently in the article, stating that there is a disagreement, is the most neutral, factual, and appropriate statement.  Any other statements regarding "Most" historically have favored ..., "Most recently" have favored ..., or similar other attempts to push any POV will serve only to act as a  magnet for further  edit wars.  What say you?  Yaf (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Straw man argument. I agree there is a disagreement among the court decisions, by a ratio of 176 to 2.  I disagree about the neutrality of a statement that such a disproportionate disagreement can be called simply a 'disagreement'.  This gives undue weight to the tiny minority, which is a pro-gun POV push.  176 to 2 by fair weighting needs to include the 'predominate view' qualifier to comply with WP:NPOV policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. This is progress.  We agree that there is a "disagreement" among the court cases and decisions among the 9 districts, 2 districts, and the, thus far, tacit district(s).  Now, what is the proper weight for the summary in the lede in light of the Supreme Court granting cert in November 2007 to resolve the variances among these varied opinions?  Should it be 0% as you propose, or should we give the "disagreement" more weight?  Yaf (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Heller cert is already covered in intro paragraph four. The weight of the two outlying court decisions is presently given too much weight by their being explicitly mentioned in paragraph three.   I actually favor providing balance to that by mentioning that the two outlying decisions run contrary to 176 other rulings, but am willing to concede to the compromise wording which was agreed upon back during the consensus negotiations last November.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no weight given to the two more recent decisions. The current protected version is: "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation [7]. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]"
 * Hence, this wording is more balanced than what you propose. It also avoids being a magnet to attract further edit wars.  I would think that not mentioning the two cases to which you object so strongly in the lede would be more neutral. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal suppresses the predominate view of the courts, which the 'collective' interpretation, and therefore gives undue weight to the minority view in voliation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "predominant view" is OR. the district courts are independent entities. they have decided different numbers of cases, over different timelines, dating back - what, a century? suggesting a "predominant view" suggests homogeneity. my own OR based upon the list of all those court ruling? there's an awful lot of shady lawyers out there, willing to argue second amendment cases where the contention is a loser at face value - convicted felons crying because they can't get their rights restored. it's a basic fact of rights - they confer upon law-abiding, mentally sound, adults. that's why felons can have their freedom restricted in those places called "prisons". the majority of these "second amendment" rulings should never have even be let into a courtroom, since most of them are convicted felons arguing their second amendment rights have been violated. but as i said, that's my own OR. "predominant view" is also OR. Anastrophe (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The court record is solidly sourced (see above). It is not original research to state that historically the courts, by a overwhelming majority, have taken the 'collective rights' view of the 2A. (By one well sourced count, by a ratio of 176 to 2). I am not stuck on the word 'predominate', and can compromise the exact wording but this critical concept must be included to avoid giving undue weight to the minority view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With dated sources. Your proposal suppresses the obvious shift in public opinion that has occurred, suppresses the extent of the disagreement necessitating a Supreme Court review, and is clearly a POV push supporting the historical opinion that existed from circa 1905 to circa 2001, while giving no weight to the shift of opinion back to the strict constitutionalists' opinions that existed from 1789 until 1905.  Additionally, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the present state of affairs relative to the sum total of the article, not to belabor an historical state of affairs. If we put your proposed wording in the lede, then, for balance, we would have to state something along the lines of  "... but recent cases have engendered a shift in opinion necessitating a review for the first time since 1939 by the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the disagreement that has arisen among the district courts, as well as to resolve the shift in opinion that recently has favored an "individual" rights interpretation instead of the historical "collective" rights interpretation previously favored by District Courts".  This type of wording would be needed for NPOV balance with a dated historical "Most" statement as you propose, taken from a reference that predates the Heller/Parker shift.  However, such wording would be way too lengthy for the lede, which is supposed to be an article summary. Why not just state there is "disagreement" and let the body of the article (already written) flesh out the details of the historical perspectives. An introduction is supposed to summarize the current state of affairs for an article, not push an anti -- Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) agenda POV in the face of every reader, attracting further  edit wars. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dated sources? Shift of opinion? Your bias shows. In the DC circuit there was a 'collective rights' ruling as recent as 2004 with Seegars v. Gonzales, and in the Fifth there have been thirteen 'collective/states rights' rulings since Emerson (United States v. Darrington, etc.).  Not to mention the dozens of other 'collective' court rulings in the other districts since 2001.  It is you who is using original research.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment about post-Emerson collective-right decisions in the 5th Circuit intrigues me. What is your source for that? PubliusFL (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Collective/states rights' decisions, a whole slew of 2A cases in the Fifth were recently rejected on the 'reasonable restriction' theory.  See here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh. In the context of the 2A, "states rights" can mean two very different things.  Especially when used in conjunction with "collective right," it can refer to the idea that the right to bear arms is held by states rather than individuals.  But it can also refer to the broader idea in constitutional law that prohibitions on the federal government do not necessarily apply to the states (with the specific application, in this context, being that the 2A only restricts federal law).  When you used "collective/states" together like that I thought you intended the former meaning, but it looks like you meant the latter meaning.  I don't see any post-Emerson 5th Circuit cases concluding that the 2A guarantees a collective right or right belonging to the states (as opposed to one merely unenforceable against the states). PubliusFL (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. The major shift in public opinion only occurred in the last 1 and a fraction years (2007-2008), although a shift in judicial opinion began in 2001 with the Emerson case.  When the major shift occurred, the Supreme Court granted cert to resolve the variances, around November 20, 2007 as I recall.  As you have agreed previously, a disagreement of opinions exists among the districts.  The Supreme Court is working to resolve this difference. Where is your cited source that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert, or that we should use a now-dated point of view push in the lede of this article to "summarize" the article and play down the significance of the Supreme Court case, the first since 1939 to address the "individual" rights question of the Second Amendment?  Inserting a now-dated version of opinion is not neutral, or even factual, considering the Supreme Court granting cert.  Yaf (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like SaltyBoatr's concern is that the "disagreement" language is that it conceals that fact that currently the great majority of federal circuits reject the individual right view. It looks like Yaf's concern is that the previous versions of line 2 ("most"/"predominant views") give insufficient weight to the fact that a definitive Supreme Court decision is in the wings, and will not be decided on the basis of tallying up circuits. So how about this -- we address Yaf's concern by moving the reference to the Heller case from the 4th paragraph up to the 3rd, and make the line 2 sentence something like this: "At present, only two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted the individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) is expected to resolve the jurisdictional split." PubliusFL (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that suggestion is constructive, and I could accept it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One caveat, we probably need to pay more attention to defining the 'individual rights view' which is widely ambiguous. For instance, one take on a definition is 'full incorporation to the states' (not on the table), another is the 'right of insurrection' (not on the table), and another (under SCOTUS consideration with Heller) is 'subject to reasonable restrictions'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great progress! But, how about if we use the following wording, instead: "'At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve the jurisdictional split [7].'"
 * This wording avoids a WP:NOT problem, i.e., Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as well as removing the "only" POV language. I could accept this variant of wording. Yaf (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any compromise should include that each circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals is not bound by a ruling of another circuit. That's why there can be contradictory rulings among the various circuits. So the fact that "more" federal courts have followed the "collective right" model is irrelevant in the Fifth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit. I've already included this clarification in the body of the article.


 * Also, I recommend a separate section be added to the article that would describe the differences between the various suggested interpretations of the Second Amendment. That would help someone, who is not familiar with the RKBA issue, to understand what's being debated. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Yaf's proposal above conceals that fact that currently the great majority of federal circuits reject the individual right view. Doing so would cause an undue weight problem and violate WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, does that mean that we are in agreement with the proposed wording I mentioned above, or is additional work still needed on the wording? Yaf (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to PubliusFL suggested compromise, which would have the third paragraph of the intro read:

"Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, only two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted the individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) is expected to resolve the jurisdictional split.  There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia."

I would agree that the undue weight problem is fixed by this compromise wording, and then the POV tag could be removed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this third paragraph wording, as it violates WP:NOT, violating WP is not a crystal ball. I also object to the word "only", as this is POV pushing language.  This proposal also does not contain references.  Hence, for all these reasons, this proposal is unacceptable.  Yaf (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the "under review" phrasing by itself is meaningless. Many cases are under review, and never even achieve cert worthiness.  There is a vast difference when cert is granted, especially for so-called "percolating issues" such as this. Yaf (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Balancing POV
   removed upon reaching consensus. 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which wording is most neutral for the third paragraph of the introduction?


 * The better question is: Which wording gives the most neutral balance to the points of view, avoiding undue weight to the minority opinion?


 * Or perhaps the better question is: Which wording gives the most neutral balance to the points of view, avoiding undue weight to the historical "collective" rights view in light of the two more recent "individual" rights views and with the Supreme Court having granted certiorari to resolve the jurisdictional split?


 * What about creating a section that lists all of the U.S. Court of Appeals dealing with the Second Amendment. That section would also include a clarification regarding the independence of each circuit from one another. That clarification would make it clear that a 9-2 split is not binding nationwide. The Introduction could then simply have a reference to that new section. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't oppose this idea. But it doesn't do much to solve the NPOV problem with the introduction caused by the Monobi/SMP0328 edits of  February 13.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a section would probably be a good idea. Incidentally, regarding the so-called "NPOV problem" to which you refer, these edits by these two editors were less POV than the preceding version, which attempted to put undue weight on an historical preponderance of "collective" rights without regarding the shift to "individual rights" that has occurred with first the Emerson case and now with the Heller/Parker case that has gone before the Supreme Court.  Insisting on a now-dated POV, relative to a now hotly-disputed issue that is being resolved by the Supreme Court (to resolve the jurisdictional split), is not NPOV. Also, the older version acts as a  magnet. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I genuinely appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. We agree about some things and disagree about other things, and hopefully can negotiate a compromise to our disagreements.   Interestingly, we seem to agree at the core about a preponderance of court opinion.  You write above "...an historical preponderance of "collective" rights".  This preponderance of court opinion is the same one that I see.  Our point of disagreement, rather, is whether this preponderance is past tense (as is your point of view), or a present tense, (which is my point of view).  Can we discuss the 'tense' of the preponderance of court view some more.  Is it historical, or is it present tense?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, (the following is courtesy of scot): "over 30 state governments, 250 members of the House of Representatives, and 55 Senators have signed a resolution authored by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott backing the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment.  Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a resolution indicating that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur.  "
 * This clearly supports a shift in public opinion that is likely of a greater magnitude than the shift in public opinion just prior to the Civil War that led to the compromise attempts by Henry Clay to avoid the Civil War, what with involving 30 states already. This magnitude of shift in public opinion clearly represents a major change of state.  Emerson and Heller/Parker are but the tip of the judicial iceberg that is fueling this shift. Based on this, I would say the "collective" rights view is definitely past tense. Likewise, the so-called "California-consensus", for banning handguns in San Francisco, was recently overturned by the courts, again reflecting a shift in judicial opinion even in a Federal Court District in which the position formerly was strictly a "collective rights" view.  We need to represent the current state of affairs in the article, not advocate a dated  POV. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This dispute is not about public opinion, or the opinion of politicians. Rather this dispute is about the preponderance of court opinion.  And, about that we have agreed.  The preponderance of court opinion is 'collective'.  We simply disagree whether it is past tense, or present tense.  Can we talk about that distinction instead?  Your 'tip of the iceberg' metaphor involves prediction of the future I think. I hope we agree that we should not predict the future in Wikipedia.  So, again, can we discuss whether the preponderance of court opinion is present tense, or past tense?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this. The debate we are having right now will almost certainly become largely moot before the year is out, and the article will have to be changed dramatically one way or the other depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Heller, but for now the current state of the law is that some view of the 2A other than the "Standard Model" individual right view (whether the "collective right" view, the "modified collective right" view, the "sophisticated collective right" view, or the "limited individual right" view) is currently binding precedent, and therefore "the law" as applied by the courts, in 11 of the 13 federal circuits. PubliusFL (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the collaboration. I agree, in some way we should see a different landscape after a Heller ruling. This begs the question of how to neutrally describe the issue being judiciated. The name "Standard Model" was coined by Glenn Reynolds in 1965 is not neutral or accurate. I also don't think the name "Individual rights model" is best because it is far too ambiguous. We should be careful to describe exactly what is being reviewed by the SCOTUS, which is the banning of a class of gun by federal law. State law in not being reviewed. Neither is the 'right of insurrection'. The name issue is tough because actually the "Individual right model" name has been commonly used to cover a wider spectrum of hypothesis than that now on the docket; from the 'right of insurrection', to the 'full incorporation', to 'unlimited right to weapons', to the 'subject to reasonable regulation' (with a full federal ban on handguns being questioned as 'not reasonable regulation' currently on the docket with Heller). The best neutral name for this 'individual' camp I think would be the Individualist View. This choice is most precise to describe the current state of affairs, plus it is plainly neutral having been used by both Dave Kopel and by Robert J. Spitzer on both sides of the POV divide. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "preponderance of court opinion" is past tense for those living in the two districts in which the "individual" rights model has already been judicially declared. In 7 other districts, the "preponderance of court opinion" has been "collective", although the shift recently in the California-handgun ban in San Francisco indicates that even the "collective" label may not be an apt and sole adjective that can be used any longer. Among the other districts, the interpretations are different again, or non-existent.  "Preponderance of court opinion", in terms of meaning "correct" for a lay reader, is not about doing a simple tally of court decisions.  Rather, it is about the decisions that have come down in the particular district one chooses for discussion.  Once the Supreme Court rules on Heller/Parker, the variance among the districts will likely only be reduced, but not eliminated. I agree that the article will require a massive re-write upon the decision coming down.  But, I am not certain that we will see anything other than a narrow decision, leaving much to be decided in the future by the court(s).  As for the "individualist" label, I am not certain whether even this is an accurate label.  Considering the complexity, perhaps the present wording, expressing "disagreement", is about the best statement that can be used, at least in terms of universal accuracy.  "Preponderance of court opinion" certainly has no bearing at the present time in the two districts that have taken the "Individual" rights view.  Yaf (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've moved beyond "preponderance of court opinion" language for the article itself. My proposed language would note that, at present, only two of thirteen circuits have adopted the individual right interpretation, but that the Supreme Court is expected to address the issue soon in Heller.  That language avoids the impression that the weight of court opinion is uniform across the country.  I agree with you that "individualist view" is probably not the best term, as it does not seem to be a term in common usage.  Most of the uses I can find are connected to a single scholar, Robert Spitzer.  The freecolorado.com link provided by SaltyBoatr does not attribute the term "individualist view" to Kopel himself -- it appears to be a blogger's own characterization of Kopel's position. PubliusFL (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the PubliusFL suggested wording for the third paragraph acceptable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the suggested wording is acceptable. "Only" is POV language.  Likewise, there are different degrees of review, and certiorari granted is a much more accurate description of the current status. Yaf (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you suggest compromise wording? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would propose wording along the lines of: "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve the jurisdictional split.[7] There is also a 'modified collective' view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]"
 * This would avoid the "WP is not a crystal ball" problematic wording with the phrasing of "expected" as well as the POV language, as well as more clearly defining the degree of review. Yaf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr wrote: "'Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split.[7] There is also a 'modified collective' view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]'" Yaf (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few grammar changes above, which suspect are non-controversial. I find this compromise to be pushing the edge of the POV neutral point, but I could accept this compromise wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can accept this compromise wording. Yaf (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

By agreed consensus, change third paragraph of the introduction to:

"Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split. There is also a 'modified collective' view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia." remove tagline and unprotect article. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for missing this problem before, but I was just checking the refs, and find that the first footnote points to the out of date 2004 DOJ brief on this, the more recent DOJ brief online copy here should be used. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Either works to establish a major point of contention just as well.  Hopefully, an admin can make this requested change, or just unprotect the page and we can make it.  Whatever is easier.  Thanks. Yaf (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the third paragraph of the introduction per the consensus here and removed POV (diff). Page protection is scheduled to expire two days from now. — Athaenara ✉  21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the new Introduction. Should this article be semi-protected? I just reverted vandalism to the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One case of simple vandalism is hardly cause for protection. If it gets worse, I'll counter it somehow.  —EncMstr 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK for now. Glad to know you'll be watching. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)