Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 1 March 2008

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Firearms High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

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)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. 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. 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! 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. 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, Los Angeles Times Feb 16, 2008

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms, and not part of Misplaced Pages: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 "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 "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 "ditors with a pro-gun bias hav 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 . 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 <!--NPOV?--> time in ]. {{Fact|date=February 2008}}"'' 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)

The word 'most' in the 3rd introductory paragraph.

Please see above, there are serious NPOV problems with a description of the courts over this as being merely a disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question; what is the problem with the 3rd intro paragraph, in which every statement is cited? Is there a problem with one of the cites? Yaf (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it presently stands, the 3rd intro paragraph states, "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms<ref>, ]</ref> or a collective State militia right.<ref>{{cite book |last=Holder |first=Angela Roddy|title=The Meaning of the Constitution |pages=pp. 64|publisher=Barron's Educational Series |date=1997 |isbn=0-7641-0099-8}}</ref> The ] are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation <ref> '']'', '']'', and '']''</ref>. 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 ].<ref>] (2001),Findlaw-Writ</ref>". Is there a problem with any of these cites? Yaf (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no word "most" in the 3rd paragraph. How is the word "most" at issue? Yaf (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf has removed the word 'most' on several instances, here is one example diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This intro must accurately summarize the article, and the article describes 9 to 2. It is a POV push to indicate that 9 to 2 is a mere disagreement. The accurate description would include the word 'most courts'. In short, your favored version, omitting the word 'most' is a POV distortion typical of a pro-gun POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS that states there is no "disagreement" among the courts, and that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert to resolve this disagreement among the courts? Yaf (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the text does not say "mere disagreement"; it says disagreement. Wouldn't "Mere disagreement" be a distortion? Are you now favoring a change to "mere disagreement"? Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you oppose the word 'most' in the third intro paragraph? You have removed it several times, why? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists disagreement as being:

• 1: the act of disagreeing
• 2 a: the state of being at variance : disparity b: quarrel

By this, I would say that def. 2a, the state of being at variance, is a proper summary of the present Supreme Court state of affairs after declaring cert on Heller/Parker, to resolve the variances of interpretation that historically have existed between the detailed historical viewpoints of the various courts. The last paragraph of the article, on Heller, discusses this; likewise, the detailed discussion in the article contains the information on the historical cases, including the more recent 2 cases that have gone at variance with the historical 9 cases treatment. Using "Most" as you propose would be a POV-push that the Heller case is not before the SCOTUS, and that wording would treat this case as being insignificant. It is more accurate to state "disagreement" in the sense of definition 2a with full disclosure in the article regarding the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases, and the Supreme Court granting cert to resolve the variances (solve the disagreement) between these cases. But "Most" would imply that no summarization including the Supreme Court case content is at issue. This would not be accurate. Why do you not want an accurate article? Yaf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate? Then why did you mis-write: the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases? You should have written 9 districts are unambiguously 'collective' and two districts are split 'collective' versus 'individual'. (And in the Fifth District, there are about eight 'collective' rulings subsequent to that rogue 'Emerson' case. See for instance United States v. Gipson (2006), United States v. Patterson (2005), etc.)

Ratio of 178 to 2. When measured in number of cases, the difference is even more stark. Of the roughly 178 cases in the history of the court that speak to the to the 2A. Of these 178 cases only two have found an 'individual right'. See here for a summary of these 178 cases. By a vast amount, most of the case law has not been sympathetic to the 'individual right' hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the case law until 1905 was sympathetic to the "individual right" protections, except for that one little case in Arkansas from back in the 19th Century, if I recall correctly. And, it even had an individual right protection for travelers when "upon a journey" :-) Then, in 1905, the shift started, to rewrite history. The importance now is that there is a disagreement among the districts; this is factual, it is properly cited, and is properly noted in the article. The details on the key cases in each of the 9 districts against gun rights and in the 2 key cases in the 2 districts that revert back to the original interpretation are duly noted in the body of the article. Likewise, the granting of cert to resolve the variance (solve the disagreement) among the differences of opinion is noted in the body of the article, and must likewise be summarized in the lede. In legal parlance, quantity of wrong decisions does not presume correctness of these decisions, as you seem to want to push. Am removing the NPOV tagline, as the article is neutral, factual, and cited. If you wish to make changes to add more balance, that is fine, too, provided that additions are made with cites, but the summary is supposed to be factual, neutral, cited, and be a summary (i.e., be short). It is. Yaf (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral, see my explanation above. You now claim 'all the case law until 1905', please cite. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have restored the text containing the details of "until 1905" to the article, which you had previously removed. Now cited. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing state law with federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State courts are permitted to interpret the United States Constitution, so such decisions are relevant to the article. It should be made clear in the article which decisions are from federal courts and which are from state courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, international law, foreign national law, God's law, and imagined law are also often used by the Supreme Court. For the most part, the Supreme court 'votes' on cases rather than interpreting the law. Once they've voted, they support their position however they fell like. Usually, there is support for either side SOMEWHERE out there. Is there any debate about this fact? Pedophilia, believe it or not, has a small level of support in the courts. --Asams10 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Miller revisited

I thought that everyone knew the the 1939 decision in Miller explictly stated that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply because (Miller having died), no one brought the question of whether the arms (specifically, a shotgun of length less than 18 inches) had a relationship to a "well-regulated militia". The question of whether Miller had a relationship with a "well-regulated militia" was not discussed by the court. It also seems relatively clear, but dicta, that the Miller Court did find an individual right, as Miller was clearly not a member of an organized militia. Could you point me to previous discussions on this matter? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

{{editprotected}} This dispute is over the neutrality of the article. Considering this is a NPOV dispute, could the {{POV}} 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)

N 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 Misplaced Pages: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 {{POV}} 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 {{POV}} 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 {{POV}} 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, Misplaced Pages: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 {{POV}} 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: Misplaced Pages: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 or a collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation . 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."

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

Template:Multicol February 2008 (current):

Line 1:

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

Line 2:

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

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.

Template:Multicol-break 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 or a collective State militia right:

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.

Template:Multicol-end

The citations (as numbered in both versions):

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)

:It is hard to assume neutrality from Athaenara in light of this.

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 Misplaced Pages: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." 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 {{POV}} magnet for further {{POV}} 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 or a collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation . 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."

Hence, this wording is more balanced than what you propose. It also avoids being a {{POV}} 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 {{POV}} 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 ."

This wording avoids a WP:NOT problem, i.e., Misplaced Pages 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

{{RFCpol | section=RfC: POV dispute on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution !! reason=What is an appropriate summary wording for the introduction regarding "individual" vs. "collective" rights positions of the circuit courts? !! time=22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)}} 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 {{POV}} 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 or a collective State militia right. 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. 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.

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 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."

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 {{POV}} 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)

References

1. JENNIFER McKEE (Feb. 13, 2008). "State signs gun rights brief". Missoulian.com. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. "Hutchison, Abbott Fight For Gun Rights". KXAN.com.
3. "'Any person' has right to gun, state says, Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved". WorldNetDaily.com. February 20, 2008.
4. "Letters to the Editor, Second Amendment an individual right". Washington Times. Feb. 19, 2008. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Spitzer, Robert J. (2003). The Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" and United States v. Emerson. 77 St. John's L. Rev.
6. Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, 2004-08-24
7. Holder, Angela Roddy (1997). The Meaning of the Constitution. Barron's Educational Series. pp. pp. 64. ISBN 0-7641-0099-8. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
8. United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer
9. Dorf, Michael C. (2001),Findlaw-Writ

States rights

From the Constitution

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

From the above it can be seen that while Congress has the authority to set standards (and provide at least some of the funding) for the militia, responsibility for training and leadership of the militia belong to the states. The fact that leadership is at the state level shows that the militia is a state institution.

Since the militia is (was) composed of all able bodied men of military age, any restriction on the people bearing arms would be an infringement on a state body (the militia). It would therefore follow that any restriction on arms MUST be at the state level.

Amendment 2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (The word State refers to the individual states making up the US) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.(if the right can be infringed by the federal government, then the federal government can disarm the states.)

It is probable that the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the states and to make a possible military takeover through use of the army and navy (both federal institutions), less likely. Such a takeover would result in the federal government turning into the "master" of the states instead of their tool and would result in greatly expanding federal powers and restrictions on state powers after such a takeover. One need only look at the vast expansion of federal power and restrictions on state powers after the Civil War to see that this has in fact happened.

The preamble to the Bill of Right states that the Amendments in the Bill are restrictions on federal power.

First part of the Preamble

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The only conclusion possible is that the federal government has no Constitutional power to limit arms and is specifically forbidden from doing so.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.88 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you as legal matter, SCOTUS does not agree, and we would need WP:RS to that effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS has so butchered the intent and plain wording of the Constitution that every Supreme Court Justice for the last hundred years is guilty of breach of their oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.213 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article suffers from too much POV pushing and original research already. Re-read WP:Policy SaltyBoatr (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 44 states

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government.

Notice the word "taught" as used above. That word implies a widespread awareness of the idea of a military takeover. Add in the various warnings regarding the dangers of standing armies and there can be no doubt that the idea of a military takeover by the federal government had occurred to the founding fathers.

A militia controlled by the states would act as a bar to that type of power grab. A militia disarmed through federal law, would not.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.67 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4.156.27.67 and 4.156.252.213, you need to add references to what you are saying. References would make your arguments stronger. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unaware that Federalist 44 IS a reference then you should not be a referee (or whatever you are) on ANY topic involving the Constitution.

I advise you look up "The Federalist Papers" in order to expand your knowledge of sources. I also advise you to take some time and actually read then to increase your understanding of the Constitution. The previous assumes that you have read the Constitution, which the vast majority have not. If you haven't, then you should start by reading that.

as for warnings against standing armies, here are a couple

Thomas Jefferson on Standing armies

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

James Madison on Standing Armies

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

The Declaration of Independence even had standing armies as one of the complaints

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.250 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of The Federalist Papers. You need to understand that at Misplaced Pages you need to provide a link to a source, even if that source is well known. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers are not a WP:RS for current legal issues. They may be relevant for legal issues of the time. Again, I agree with you, but what you've written cannot be placed in the article without appropriate cites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the 'unreferenced' tag on this section. ref tags are for use in article space only. talk pages have no requirement for citations. that said, talk pages do have a requirement that they be focused specifically on article improvement - they are not generalized forums for debating the issues, and on that basis, most of the commentary in this section could be reasonably deleted. please, fellow editors, keep commentary brief and on the point of improving the article. Anastrophe (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we have a 2nd Amendment case going to the Supreme Court any day now, and we can't cite source material on the 2nd Amendment and why it was created.

and lets not forget that this section is probably going to be deleted.

JOY!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway!

The correct paper for the Hamilton quote is 29 not 44. My mistake.

www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

The US law defining the "militia". Many of the states probably have their own definitions.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Since the ANTI-Federalists managed to create enough opposition to the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was created due to this opposition and was a REQUIREMENT by many of the original 13 states in order to approve it, here are quotes those opponents

Fderalist Farmer letter 18

www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm

it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them

Patrick Henry - also an ANTI-Federalist is cited with the following quotes

quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Hope the above links make you happy, but I seriously doubt any of them will be used.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.227 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These sources could support a history or origin section, or I'd suggest summarily archiving as a discussion about the subject rather than about article improvements. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the current (20th century and following) interpretation sections, much as we would like SCOTUS to actually read the Constitution they are defending. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely DENY that that the Supreme Court is DEFENDING the Constitution. The Constitution lists GOALS and powers delegated to the federal government, by the states, to meet those goals. Those powers are exclusively for organizing the federal government, creating a postal service, for regulating interstate commerce and for dealing with foreign powers. Regulation of gun ownership and membership in the militia fall under NONE of above.

The Bill of Rights was passed as a UNIT, and the preamble is a part of what was passed. That preamble thus applies to the second amendment.

The fist part of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights states

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The second Amendment consists of BOTH a declaration and a restriction.

The restriction being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and instead of an "origin" or "history" section why not a section showing either that the Supreme Court either hasn't the brains to find its collective ass with both hands, directions, a map, and a GPS or is in willful violation of the oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of just about every word of the second amendment seems to be listed in the article except for the most important one. Why not add it!

www.thefreedictionary.com/infringement

1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. 2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

Noun 1. infringement - an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"

2. infringement - a crime less serious than a felony

WOW! Infringement is a CRIME!!!!!!! Who would have thunk it!

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

as a matter of etiquette, and in general policy, users are discouraged from using lengthy 'signature lines on talk page posts. please stop repeating the 'As a popular saying goes' signature. while i happen to share the sentiment, it becomes tiresome seeing it repeated. wikipedia talk pages don't hide read comments as on a typical forum. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Infringement

The article uses the word 'infringement' eighteen times and never discusses what the word means in the context of the 2A. Lots of people, like the IP editor just above, hold the view that the dictionary definition is operative. Of course, essentially all of the gun control POV disagrees, but set that aside. I also see that the large majority of the pro-gun POV also agrees that the dictionary definition does not apply either. I see that only the very extreme of the pro-gun POV fringe believes that infringement in the context of the 2A means literally no encroachment of the 'right' is allowed. Witness the recent pro-gun amicus briefs, which include position statements of various pro-gun entities. Essentially all of these briefs, both the pro and the con, support reasonable federal regulation of firearms. In these amicus briefs I see that 'infringement' allows the prohibition of firearms for classes of people, and the prohibition of types of firearms, and the prohibition of firearms in certain locations. In short, the ambiguity in the article about the meaning of infringement it gives undue weight to the fringe belief that the dictionary definition applies to the 2A. Infringement for the vast majority of the POV's on this topic is not the dictionary definition. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

all rights under the constitution are restrictable for certain classes of people; this is neither novel nor news. for those who are not within those classes, the right shall not be infringed, and this is applicable to all the other rights codified in the constitution. no law-abiding, mentally fit, adult citizen can legally have their right to free expression infringed. however, the mentally ill may legally have their right to free expression infringed. just as those in the penitentiary cannot vote, nor can they publicly assemble. the issue pertains to infringing the right of non-criminal/law-abiding, mentally fit, adults, to keep and bear arms, which is what is occurring in DC, and elsewhere. Anastrophe (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree then. In the context of the Constitution, the word 'infringed' has a different meaning than that found in the dictionary. The constitutional meaning is closer to" 'reasonably restricted' or 'infringed subject to reasonable exceptions'. With this being the case, about ten usages of the verb infringed in the article are ambiguous and should be clarified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

we are not entirely in agreement. the majority of the instances of "infringement" within the article are within quotes of various versions of second amendment writings. so it would be more useful to know the specific instances that are troublesome. furthermore, i don't see that the dictionary definition quoted above differs at all from its use in the constitution. again, all rights have the simple, basic restriction i put forth above, because rights only confer upon law-abiding, mentally fit, adults. so the use of infringed within the amendment has the same meaning as "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". or "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". these other amendments make adamant statements that the rights will not be restricted - but within the common theme at all times that they do not apply if you are outside the class above. are you in favor of 'reasonable restrictions' on your ability to edit here on wikipedia? for example, being limited to editing here only once a month? or possibly being prosecuted if you utter a curse word on a talk page? some would consider those 'reasonable restrictions' - but they are not. they are only reasonable if you're in the class of people for whom such rights are explicitly not conferred. Anastrophe (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The usages of the verb infringe in the direct quotes, obviously are OK. There are usages as a verb in sentences outside the direct quotes; with the meaning 'reasonably restrict'. Those usages are ambiguous. I don't see your distinction. In a constitutional sense, yes you and I both agree that 'infringe' means subject to reasonable restrictions. But the dictionary sense does not have include 'a subject to reasonable restriction' exemption. Therefore, the use of the verb 'infringe' (excluding the direct quotes) is ambiguous relative to the dictionary. Specifically, the intro uses that verb in its ambiguous sense six times, also several other times down through the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have any of the federal court decisions dealing with the Second Amendment referred to the word "infringed" (other than quoting the Amendment)? If not, then I suggest waiting for the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait for what? Even Dick Heller argues about "infringement" on page one of his writ, and then on page two acknowledges "however else (the District of Columbia) might regulate the possession and use of arms". Thus Heller argues against a complete ban of handguns, not against plain regulation. Clearly, all but the extreme pro-gun fringe agree that a Constitutional definition of 'infringement' allows significant regulation. I have read many of the Heller amicus briefs now, and did not find even one that argued against reasonable firearm regulation. The argument boils down to disagreements about what is reasonable regulation. The Constitutional definition of to infringe is different (and looser) than the dictionary definition. The article suffers from that ambiguity. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to any notion that the Constitution gives the feds ANY power to regulate arms within any State. The meaning of infringe in NOT debatable. The founders were all intelligent men and knew the English language better then most people posting here. If they wanted the feds to have the power to control guns they would have said so. THEY DID NOT SAY SO! The 10th Amendment PLAINLY states any powers not given, ARE NOT GIVEN! and continue to RESIDE either IN THE STATES or IN THE PEOPLE. What is so FREAKING HARD to understand about that? The militia is a State body and necessary to the power of self-defense expressly RESERVED to the states within the Constitution. ANY regulation of arms for the militia would therefore have to be a STATE power. The militia by US law is every able bodied male from 17 to 45. That is US law and also not debatable. Regarding the Heller case, Washington DC is a NONSTATE territory managed by the feds and and the above does not apply. The feds CAN regulate the militia in such areas since the feds have all RESERVED state powers in NON STATE territories. An additional issue is that the power of SELF-DEFENSE is an innate and unalianable RIGHT of ALL PEOPLE and is so expressed in some STATE Constitutions. Taking away the ability to own ANY guns INFRINGES on that right at both the state level, by disarming the militia, and on the individual level, by disarming the individual. and don't give me any bullshit about how guns cause crime. Almost a million people a year use guns to defend themselves FROM crime and EVERY single study shows that widespread gun ownership deters crime. I HOPE no one here is so brain warped that they believe that a strong military deters military aggression by other countries and is necessary, while at the same time individual gun ownership (the individual version of a strong military) does not deter crimes (aggression) by other individuals and is not necessary.

Article 1 Section 10 US Constitution reserves to States the right to defend themselves.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. 4.156.27.127 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Have added a new section "Shall not be infringed" with cited pertinent comments by the SCOTUS on this from 1897. This should be a start. Yaf (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that the PLAIN EVERYDAY meaning of a law IS the law, unless specific information is available that a secondary meaning was meant. The plain everyday meaning of "shall not be infringed" means exactly THAT.

For those that can't quite grasp the meaning of "infringe". If you own a patent is it OK for the feds to strip you of ALL rights under that patent and therefore let anyone and everyone "infringe" on it?

RE: mentally fit, in the discussion above. Who judges mental fitness? and how do you decide if that person is competent to act as a judge? Is anyone advocating setting up some kind of mental health Gestapo that can strip people of their rights WITHOUT a conviction in a court of law?

I for one am 100% opposed to any such thinking. 4.156.252.90 (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the concept of mental fitness has been around for centuries, and it is a "reasonable person" test, much along the lines of "plain everyday meaning" you cite for interpretation of the law. nobody has suggested setting up a "mental health gestapo", so that's merely an annoying red-herring. all rights confer upon law-abiding, mentally-fit, adults. period. technically, children don't even have the right to free speech, even though it is more often than not tolerated under the law. as well, children used to be able to buy guns and use them for target practice, but that time has long since passed, unfortunately. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

State law and state constitutions.

I just removed Yaf's insertion of the section on state court cases and state law. While this may be of interest to the issue of gun rights, it is an issue of gun rights under state law. I don't see that the gun rights under state law is relevant to the federal law. I am open to discuss this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is state interpretations of the Second Amendment. Please read the content before deleting. It is all properly cited. Have restored. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These passages are seem to be copy and pasted from pro-gun websites. I agree that the state courts address state law about state rights to firearms, but this is a federal article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How is Buzzard considered a pro-gun push? It clearly established the first "collective" statement regarding the Second Amendment. Yaf (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

State v. Buzzard, (4 Ark. 18) was about Arkansas law in Arkansas state court. State jurisdiction, not federal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, it was a state court, but it was the first collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, "The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions... ". State interpretation of the US 2A was clearly at play here. Yaf (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In play in Arkansas. So what? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"State law about bear arms is pro-gun POV push, see talk please." saltyboatr, this is obnoxious. essentially you are saying that well-cited, historical information cannot be added to the article if it doesn't entirely support your POV. that's intolerable. you are way too quick with the POV tag, and with edit warring. furthermore, "These passages are seem to be copy and pasted from pro-gun websites." - are you prepared to back up that assertion? you're accusing Yaf of plagiarism if so. Anastrophe (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some Google searches, and found that Yaf's long insertion appears heavily drawn from pro-gun websites. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is Original Research. And, it is totally false, I might add to claim this addition comes from pro-gun websites. I also consider your claim to be a personal attack. I also do not see how "collective" right content, such as contained in this insertion, can be considered pro-gun. This addition is a balanced historical perspective of the first state law cases dealing with interpretations of the 2A, presenting both "individual" interpretations (e.g., in Kentucky) and "collective" interpretations (e.g., in Arkansas). These formed the historical basis of thought and established the legal foundation regarding the two dominant views about the 2A that exist today. Since then, there have been further bifurcations of these two views into more precisely defined categorizations among the different types of "individual" and "collective" rights, respectively, but details regarding these further subdivisions are not appropriate for a summary article on the 2A. Clearly, it is difficult for readers to understand the current baseline arguments regarding "collective" and "individual" rights relative to the 2A, and it is entirely impossible without including cited historical information in the 2A article in the form of a summary regarding a short history of these interpretations. If I were simply pushing a "pro-gun" agenda, then I counter it would be counterproductive to include both "individual" and "collective" right interpretations such as this insertion contains. Rather, my goal is for this article to present a balanced NPOV approach with appropriate cited facts, that does not push either an "individual" nor a "collective" rights interpretation. A continuous claim of "pro-gun this" and "pro-gun that", assuming every editor is "pro-gun", counter to a "collective" right interpretation, and that any point of view (whether cited or not) that is counter to a "collective" right is {{POV}} and should be tagged immediately without working to resolve differences by participating with wordsmithing the wording, is counterproductive to producing a factual and balanced article. Lets focus on improving the article, not on labeling all the edits of other editors as "pro-gun", or making false claims of plagiarism regarding other editors. Yaf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any issue with the article as it presently exists? Yaf (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should this article expend space on state law? Your section deals with how state court making decisions about state law. The article is already longer than WP standards, and could you please justify why adding a wordy passage, 8,000+ characters, for something tangentially related at best. This comes closer to an issue of trivia about the 2A. You are trying to insert the state law info, make your case why this is relevant enough to justify scarce space in an article about a federal provision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not about state law. Rather, it is about the first interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that happened to have occurred in state courts. These established the dominant baseline thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, that exist to the present; leaving out these historical details clouds the discussion, while also pushing an unbalanced "collective" rights interpretation. Our goal should be to present a neutral point of view, not push any particular agenda. Yaf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is in an electronic encyclopedia. "space constraints" is a canard, there are articles orders of magnitude longer. this article also discusses the british common-law origins of the second amendment - based on your rationale saltyboatr, we should cull that too, since it doesn't specifically have to do with the federal 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on origninalism causes POV skew.

I was asked why I see a POV problem with the recent insertion of early 18th Century 2A commentary from state courts. My observation is that the article suffers from a lack of balance in perspective, with a heavy reliance on the pro-gun theory of Constitutional interpretation known as Originalism. (See also.) This POV skew is pervasive throughout the article and also is commonly found on pro-gun websites and publications. This POV skew is presently made worse by Yaf's insertion, which attempts to divine the thoughts of the founders. To attain POV counterbalance against the excessive originalism, either some of the originialist material should be removed, or split out to another article. Alternately counterbalancing material could be added, but the article suffers from too much length already. Hopefully we can work out a mutually acceptable compromise to fix this POV balance problem, and in the mean time while we do this work, I ask that the {{POV}} tag be added back to the article. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Not done (see below) Happy‑melon 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming every edit is "pro-gun" is tiresome, and patently false. Writing a balanced Second Amendment article requires content from both "collective" right interpretations as well as "individual" right interpretations, both with citations, to avoid pushing a single point of view of "collective" rights, only. Having only "collective" rights content would itself be a violation of NPOV. The insertion, with cited facts, presents both "individual" and "collective" rights, improving the article, and, I believe, is written in a neutral point of view, with information on both views. Yaf (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point. The originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation, favored by pro-gun advocates, is too heavily represented in the article. That results in a neutrality imbalance, which violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Originalism has been associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, who are conservatives, but also with liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar. Again, assuming every comment and every edit is somehow "pro-gun" is tiresome. Advocating a widely-held method of interpretation of the US Constitution with proper citations is not a neutrality imbalance. Rather, proposing an unbalanced approach that leaves out cited facts that one editor simply doesn't like is not a balanced method of writing a Misplaced Pages article, nor is it generally advocated. All major views should be included, with citations of course. Yaf (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You basically admit your bias you wrote above "These established the dominant baseline thoughts regarding the Second Amendment". That is an originalist theory, and the originalist theory is the predominate pro-gun theory. Where is the contextualism in the article? Is there balance? No, far from it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing about originalism theory written or discussed in the 2A article. However, there are two primary schools of thought regarding interpretations of the 2A; does it pertain to "individual" or "collective" rights. These categories are further broken down into shades of interpretation of the various "individual" rights and the various "collective" rights, but the top level taxonomy remains. I am not proposing that we break this taxonomy down further than the "individual" vs. "collective" rights; the article would grow way too much. But, this fundamental dichotomy is the heart of the question that is presently before the Supreme Court in Heller/Parker, and an historical perspective of how it came to be is needed for proper coverage and understanding of the Second Amendment. Context for Misplaced Pages is established by citations and references, not by eliminating cited facts because one editor says, "I don't like it." Again, assuming every comment or edit is somehow "pro-gun" is getting progressively more and more tiresome. Can we instead focus on improving the article, rather than pushing a "collective" rights viewpoint to the exclusion of all other viewpoints? Yaf (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss my point. This is not just a 'collective' versus 'individual' question. The foundation of the theory commonly favored by 'pro-gun' activists is that somehow the intent of the founders should be given extra weight. The POV pushing in article is to establish the intent of the founders to advance that cause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The founders died out in the 1820's. So, from this, can one presume that you object to any mention of the "individual" rights case, which came in 1822 in Kentucky, while some of the founders still lived and presumably had influence? On the other hand, the "collective right" interpretation case was in 1842 in Arkansas, so are you OK with that content, as it was two decades after the founders had died out, and presumably didn't involve the founders? Yaf (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your ignore your footnote 52, where you attempt to directly raise the significance of Kentucky thought, where you use a pure originalist hypothesis. Also, other examples in the article of reliance upon originalist theory, resulting in imbalance in violation of WP:NPOV policy, is the excessive analysis of the writings of George Tucker and Joseph Story. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, why don't you simply add more material to balance out any bias you feel is present in the article? As the old saying goes, "the answer to free speech is more free speech." --SMP0328. (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

to echo that, lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete wears thin, and warps the intent of NPOV. Anastrophe (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a suggestion that amounts to something like an arms race. The article is already nearly triple the ideal article size, and making the article larger like you suggest seems like bad advice. A better option would be to reach a consensus agreement as to how much 'originalist' versus 'contectualist' material is appropriate for a neutrality balance amount, (probably 50:50) and then edit up and down each type to reach that amount. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This neutrality problem with the article may be hard for you to grasp, but I think Saul Cornell says it well "(T)he Bill of Rights has been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain a well-regulated militia. ... Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such a simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate." This article has too long suffered inappropriately from being a pawn in a gun control/gun-rights debate. This insertion of 'orginialist' material by Yaf is just the most recent of a long series of POV pushing edits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you refer to "consensus" regarding this article, it appears to me to be code for you consenting to substantive changes to this article. You don't own this article. Nobody owns any Misplaced Pages article. Yet you keep dictating which edits are to be permitted and which are to be banned. You are alone here, so the wise course would be for you to compromise instead of acting as if this article is your personal property. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss this, and instead of addressing my concerns or answering my questions, you attack my intentions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss the use of originalism in this article and the effect on WP:NPOV? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't show how your references to a "consensus" is anything more than meaning that we must get your consent in order to make substantive edits to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Consensus involves a discussion. I am still waiting for some discussion about the excess reliance upon an orignialist theory, and epitomized by Yaf's insertion of early state court commentary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The early state court commentary established the two major viewpoints that exist today regarding the Second Amendment; hence, this history is necessary for understanding the dialogue that exists today regarding the Second Amendment (e.g., Heller/Parker before the Supreme Court, etc.) The article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is about the Second Amendment, not about various theories of interpretation (originalism, contextualism, etc.) of the US Constitution. It is entirely inappropriate to bog this article down with content regarding multiple theories of interpretation regarding the US Constitution. On the other hand, all major viewpoints regarding the 2A, having significant representation and sourced/cited material, does seem appropriate for inclusion in this article, which are the results of applying these theories. Simply suppressing one set of views and cites that only one editor finds "offensive" is not going to resolve the issue. Rather, insertion of cited material necessary to balance the coverage is the best way to resolve any perceived imbalance in the article. On the other hand, if there are no sources dating back to the time periods of concern regarding alternative historical interpretations, then perhaps that is indicative that such theories do not have verifiable cites, or are not widely supported, or are of modern origin unrelated to the historical record. That said, such points of view, provided there are reliable sources/cites, are still entirely appropriate for another section that could be titled, say, Modern commentary about the Second Amendment. This way, all major points of view would be present, assuming, of course, that references necessary to support such modern claims exist. Consensus is about meeting the majority of editors concerns and covering the major topics that pertain to the subject matter well; consensus is not about skewing an article to reflect one editor's unwillingness to recognize legitimately cited and sourced statements, or to skewing an article to avoid having one unwilling editor have to provide difficult-to-cite-material that perhaps does not exist. It also appears that all editors who have commented above are OK with the present wording, save one. This looks like consensus to me. Yaf (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss my point. Instead you argue against a straw man. The fact remains at present, the bulk of the article builds from the premise that there should be a strong weight given to the intent of the founders about the Second Amendment. This concept, that the intent of the founders should be given heavy weight, is typical of arguments used by the pro-gun POV. There are other methods as to how to interpret a constitution, these other methods disproportionately represented in the article causing this neutrality problem. Could we start by discussing that excess or deficient use of the various constitutional theories might skew POV? You skip this step and jump right in as to why your use of extra heavy use of an originalist theory is better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And specifically, I disagree that those state courts were ruling on the federal Second Amendment. Obviously, they were ruling on state law, and that is off topic here. I agree that those state courts were ruling on a state based right to bear arms, but this article is about the Second Amendment, which is not about a state based right, but rather a federal right. You are confusing the two, as is commonly done to push a pro-gun POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

by this rationale, all mention of the british common-law origins of the 2A must be culled, because they are discussing things that aren't the 2A proper. furthermore, the article does not not make the POV distinction that one interpretation has 'strong weight'. the article cites historical sources in discussing the history of the 2A. if you have historical sources that differ, add them to the article. if the historical record supports a different interpretation than the contemporary intepretations, then please add it. the historical additions however must be given appropriate weight to their historical prevalence. Anastrophe (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, straw man arguments. The origin of something is different from the subsequent. Is section 12 of the Liberian Constitution on topic? In Liberia, similar to Kentucky and Arkansas, a right followed subsequent to the 2A. All three are similar, subsequent and therefore tangential at best. And, you neglect to address my question in yellow above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

a common "anti-gun POV" (that in response to saltyboatr's repeated, offensive non-sequiturs that 'xyz is typical of a pro-gun POV push') is that the second amendment confers a "right" to the states (ignoring for the moment that govt cannot be conferred rights, only powers). since this argument claims that the right is held by the states, then discussion of how various states have historically interpreted that conferral of "right" is directly relevant. furthermore, please stop with hectoring repetitions of 'you didn't answer my question'. in fact, i did, indirectly. if you have historical sources that balance a perceived POV to the historical record, please add them. NPOV is not an excuse to remove properly sourced, relevant material. it is your opportunity to add balancing material. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand my point about skewed reliance on different types of constitutional theory affecting POV balance. Your favor of 'historical' mirrors an effort to infer the intent of the founders is part of an originalist constitutional theory. If you answered my question indirectly, I don't see it. Could you answer directly? Also, with an article triple the size recommended, your suggestion to 'just add more' doesn't necessarily make sense and runs contrary to the policy. Per that policy, the rule of thumb is that article of this size "Almost certainly should be divided up". Explain please why 8000 characters should be expended on state law? Could a state law section be split out? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

you are citing a guideline, not a policy. beyond that, i refuse to indulge in any more of your WP:SOUP rhetorical methods. i've been down this road before, where i respond, and you continue to hector that i did not. it is unconstructive, and contentious. i'd rather slam my hand in the door. Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If editors are unwilling to discuss this, there is no way achieve consensus, as WP:Consensus is "reached through discussion...". SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

editors are not obligated to indulge WP:SOUP masqueraded as discussion, nor does consensus mean that "if but one editor disagrees, there is no consensus". Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A quote from WP:Consensus:

Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon.

So when are there "disagreements"? Does one person not agreeing with the edits of others mean there must be a negotiation? If so, then SaltyBoatr effectively owns this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome, just that everyone can live with the outcome. SaltyBoatr, can you live with the historical record cited in the article with Reliable and Verifiable sources, with the additional outcome for you to add balancing cited material supporting your preferred views, instead of asking for the deletion of material that you do not like? If so, then we have reached consensus. On the other hand, if the discussion that has been going on on this talk page ad nauseum is not considered discussion by you, then yes, there is a problem. Yaf (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree on the issue highlighted in my question in yellow above? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question is a non-sequitur, relative to the proposal I made. Yaf (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept your proposal. Now please discuss the issue marked in yellow above. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hereby propose that a consensus has been reached. The article should be released from full protection. If SaltyBoatr attempts to alter the article in defiance of this consensus, he should be appropriately disciplined. If SaltyBoatr is necessary for there to be a consensus, then we should still release the article from full protection and then rename the article "SaltyBoatr's article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." --SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. if user saltyboatr wishes to add well-researched/sourced/cited material pertaining to the 2A contrary to yaf's recent, excellent quality additions, he's welcome to do so. insistence that well-written, properly sourced material be deleted is an abuse of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Material that accurately represents a POV - in fact bolstering it with high quality/value sources - is not fodder for deletion. the fact that yaf's contribution also contains a cite that supports saltyboatr's POV further emphasizes that the addition isn't biased - except by the historical facts. Anastrophe (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, it seems that if you are right you could then directly answer my questions above, and make your case using the power of logical reason. Instead you seek to 'indirectly respond', and attempt to appeal to the illusion that a popular vote without real discussion is a "consensus". Let the power of reason carry your logic. Stop evading my questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

you are attempting to reframe the debate to meet your own narrow definitions, in order to preclude consensus, so as i've said before, i'm not going to indulge your WP:SOUP tactics. Anastrophe (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this? This is not 'my own narrow definitions', but rather a mainstream well sourced concept. Why won't you discuss? I find your WP:SOUP accusation to be offensive and a personal attack. Are you (and the other editors around here) willing to resolve this dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

and it continues. for every statement, there is a tangential "question" to reframe what is under discussion. my plain wording in response to yours means this (since apparently it has to be spelled out with excruciating precision - though i'd wager there will be more soup in response): you are insisting that the issue in question for consensus is your statement - posed as a rhetorical - "Could we start by discussing that excess or deficient use of the various constitutional theories might skew POV?". i, and other editors, reject that narrow definition of the consensus discussion, primarily because your question has been answered numerous times, yet you refuse to even acknowledge the answers - merely repeating the hectoring "you haven't answered my question". please stop. this is the very definition of WP:SOUP. several editors here have specifically addressed your "question", yet we get more questions, and challenges claiming your question hasn't been answered, in response to our answers. my post a few up - with the bold type Agreed - frames my response to the issue in contention. it answers your "question". more to follow.Anastrophe (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You jest. The issue is that an over reliance upon an originalist theory of constitutional analysis which causes an POV neutrality problem. Yafs insertion of his 'state court' commentary has two fundamental problems 1) That it tips the already uneven use of originalist material further off a neutral balance point. And 2) that it pertains to state issues and is off topic in a federal 2A article.

(There is also, I guess, another dispute as to whether there even is a neutrality dispute.) So far, I have been unable to get any discussion of this 'originalist' neutrality problem, so we are far from completion of a consensus process . Discussion needs to happen in a consensus process and it has not yet happened. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Until this dispute is resolved, I ask that the {{POV}} tag be added back to the article. The tag was inappropiately removed 3 minutes prior to page protection by Adams10, with the edit summary "(rv: though it's disputed, there is NEVER going to be a concensus." It is also notable that Adams10 is a declared partisan in this NPOVdispute, but he has since not participated in any discussion to resolve the dispute. The fact that a NPOV dispute exists was known even to Adams10 while removing the POV tag! Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The presence of full protection should be more than enough warning that something is wrong with the article. Please read meta:The Wrong Version for a light-hearted explanation of why the protecting admin did not modify the page (as mandated by WP:PPOL). If you think the page protection was inappropriate, you should post on WP:RFP. Happy‑melon 15:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, i formally object to the blanket use of the POV tag at the top of a long article. the POV tag should be applied to the section or sections the editor has a concern about. current use of the POV tag recently has been as a 'POV bomb' that gets dropped the minute this editor objects to a particular edit. it's a form of edit warring. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except in the cases where the POV issue is pervasive throughout the article. Like in this instance, there is disproportional use of the originalist hypothesis throughout the article causing a POV neutrality problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

um, no. you're ignoring that you've been dropping the POV tag like a bomb for individual changes to the article. a single edit does not make the entire article POV. reserve use of the tag for the specific sections you have a problem with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments of 4.156.111.52

The above anon has posted on this talk page more than once, but none of his comments are related to this article. Instead, he is simply making editorials regarding the Second Amendment and other issues. I believe that the editorials of 4.156.111.52 should be removed from this talk page. I tried twice to remove one of his editorials, but he put it back both time. I don't want to run afoul of the Three-revert rule, so I've started this new section. How do all of you feel about this? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i'd propose that it's time to archive this talk page anyway, which will have the dual effect of setting aside such editorials, then future editorials can be dealt with individually - when they'll be more apparent than when inserted into the middle of the page. just a thought though.Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles