Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 5 August 2010

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution at the Reference desk. This is not a place for general discussion of the right to bear arms, or for discussion of personal research about the Second Amendment

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

	Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed October 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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.

Forward Progress?

Writing as possible moderator/organizer if y'all would have me.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Let's take it a piece at time.

The Lead

My first suggestion is we all sort of protect the lead against un-discussed changes. It is up to date, and reasonably consensused on the talk page before we put it up.

Let's pick one thing to tackle next under this process

Here are a couple ideas:

• Overall outline of the article. IMHO the structure of this article is causing problems. As one tiny example, albeit less relevant post-Heller, there is no section about the meaning of "militia". It's only buried inside (and constrained by the title of) a "scholarly commentary" section.
• Summary of Heller findings
• Summary of McDonald Findings
• The "English History" section
• Meaning of "To Keep and Bear Arms"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) as possible moderator/organizer

The English History section dispute is still active. The version of text which got locked in with the article full-protection, (which remains in the article now) remains problematic and is aligned with Hauskalainen's preferred text which has all the appearances of being his personal research and is not reflective of the point of view seen in the majority of the sourcing. This dispute has been on hold for almost three weeks now waiting for him to 'summarize' his argument. I suggest that we have waited long enough. We should go back to some non-controversial "last stable" version of this section now. Then, we should go forward with any needed corrections. The baseline text should not be the version now in the article which exists there only because it was the "locked in" version at the moment of the administrative page lock. SaltyBoatr 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, let's start. But in a way that nobody expected. First, I would only moderate and organize the effort, so nobody has to convince me of anything because I won't be "deciding". First guys, let's agree that our objective is an accurate, reliable, with balance-untainted-by-POV article. Whether you choose that due to being a higher calling, or to avoid wasting years of your life on a pitched battle that goes nowhere, or for whatever reason. And Wiki rules are just a means to that end. Also, let's have some fun at this. Be an opponent, be blunt, but still friendly. Life's too short to do otherwise.

Question #1 Guys, in 2 sentences or less, could you tell me what what you see as the main underlying difference between the way that Salty wants it and the way that Hauskalainen wants. I'm looking for something like "Hauskalainen wants to emphasize that firearm ownership is considered a natural right and individual right, and Salty wants to emphasize that it is a right granted by government and just for specific purposes" I'm sure I got this wrong, but that's the type of thing I had in mind. Just the underlying differences, no wiki-rules at this point.

Question #2 Salty, can you point us to a date in the last few months to look at the article when this section was more to your preference?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC) As moderator/organizer

I am not asking for "my preference" but instead the editor consensus stable version that existed prior to the recent edit war. This English History section sat in a relatively stable state for ten months, from August 2009 through April 2010. This stable state version would be the best starting point because it represents a version of the text that stood the test of time here, implicitly reflecting an editor consensus. SaltyBoatr 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02. I object to Hauskalaninen's use of interpretation of 250 year old documents as WP:SYN policy violation. Also, I object to the down-play of the "The concept of a universal militia originated in England" importance to the 2A, because I see that this ancient English militia tradition is mentioned as being the core issue in so many reliable sources. (The stable consensus version is well sourced.) SaltyBoatr 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty wants to move the discredited militia based garbage over into English history now that he can't infest US history "as much" with it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only came across this thread by accident... I am not interested in all the discussion threads for this article - only those that reference the English history section. It is true that I have been absent from editing but this was due to two recent bereavements which have severely limited my available time. I have come back and seen that the English history section has neen unfrozen and remains without the objectionable POV view that the right to arms developed from the duty to have arms. I must admit that I had assumed that Salty had given up his quest to give that theory more prominence than it really deserves and I was not planning to follow through on the issue of the NPOV noticeboard dispute. Armed defense forces go back into pre-history .... it is completely wrong to infer that they began at a certain point of time in England (whether you choose Norman times or the earlier Saxon times). Archeological history tell us that people have kept arms and have died from their use. The Saxons fought the Vikings and the Saxons and the Romans fought the Picts and the Celts.... just because we lack evidence in writing of the obligation of peoples to defend their communities during the Dark Ages does not mean that there was no such earlier obligation. What is clear though, is that the English Bill of Rights does not refer to the military service whereas the American Bill of Rights clearly does. This does not mean that the English Bill of Rights had an military rights agenda. Reading the bill clearly shows that it is had a personal rights agenda with a preference for powers to restrict the right being retained by Parliament and not the King. It is also wrong to say, as some have written, that England had an abhorrence of a standing army. Yes, it did have an abhorrence of a standing army funded by the people but given to the King's will.... but the New Model Army was the first professional army under parliamentary control and it was not a voluntary or a compulsory unpaid militia. References to Militia are certainly relevant to US history and to this article because the american militias had been fighting the British and the right to form militias was clearly uppermost in American minds. The article does already mention the Malcolm theory and militias gets a mention again at the end of the English history section. I would argue that it would be unbalanced to give yet more prominence to militia formation in the English history section. The section is rightly primarily about the Bill of Rights and the tussles with the King and militia formation was clearly NOT uppermost in English minds when it came to the Bill of Rights. Further mention of militias should be in the American history section and not the English history section and to do otherwise would give WP:Undue weight to the Malcolm developing rights theory.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

An irrelevant social question, feel free to not answer: Hauskalainen at heart, are are you a history guy, a 2A guy or both?

Salty, so I looked at a March 2010 version (trying to avoid the "edges" of the period that you specified.) Without spending my whole evening doing a sentence-by-sentence comparison, the main difference I noted with respect to the topic of contention is that the last paragraph in the March version is not in the current version. Is this a vaguely correct description of the content difference that you have an issue with? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. My issue is: I object to Hauskalaninen's use of interpretation of 250 year old documents as WP:SYN policy violation. Also, I object to the down-play of the "The concept of a universal militia originated in England" importance to the 2A, because I see that this ancient English militia tradition is mentioned as being the core issue in so many reliable sources. SaltyBoatr 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that I didn't make my most recent question clear. I think it goes like this: You said that the version of the section that existed from August 2009 through April 2010 is at least somewhat OK with you. I am trying to learn / determine the main difference(s) between that version and the current version. So I looked at a March 2010 version, which should be a example of one that you consider to be sort of OK. I did a rough comparison it to the current one. The main difference that I saw was that the last paragraph of the March 2010 version is now gone. And so, If I were to ask what specific changes you wanted, defined as changes rather than a complete revert) would restoring that paragraph be on the top of your list? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The main difference is that the stable version from the article seems to match the most common viewpoint seen in the reliable sourcing, while at the same time giving coverage to some of the lessor seen viewpoints. The starting point must be the sourcing. The version favored by Hausk, starts by using his personal hypothesis, then opens with an flat statement that his thesis is true sourced to an interpretation of a 250 document that "proves" his thesis. We shouldn't be agenda driven here. We should first look at all the sourcing, and then write the article passage. Fortunately there are a number of good third party secondary sources that describe the English history behind the 2A. We should be using that sourcing. (And answering your question, no. The top of my list is to remove the WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN problems in the current section and then rewriting the section to match the third party sourcing we see. The quickest way to do this is to go back to the last stable version that existed prior to the edit war.) SaltyBoatr 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you are giving a characterization of the differences and versions rather than discussing what the differences actually are. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. If you are asking for specifics, look at the first sentences of both options. Hausk's makes a statement of truth, and then sources it to a 250 year old document which he claims 'proves' his truth. Instead, we should be saying "some third party sources says that Blackstone meant this and some other sourcing says he meant that". Look at the first sentence of the 'stable' version. It gives a summary of the core point of view seen most commonly in third party reliable sourcing that discusses the English history of the 2A. SaltyBoatr 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I say that the Constitution has a Second Amendment. Looking at the text of the Constitution I do in fact find a Second Amendment. I don't need a third party to tell me what I can see with my own eyes. And again primary sources can be used in wiki articles.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) If we have a statement of law that has stood for 250 years unchallenged and then someone comes along an challenges it, and no significant historian or court body accepts the reinterpretation I think it fair to assume that the significant body of opinion still accepts the old interpretation. Malcolm's position is, if you think about, quite extraordinary. It is similar to saying the following:- "I have looked through English written law and can find nowhere where murder is made illegal. Therefore murder must be legal". This is stupid because the crime of murder is an illegal act under in COMMON LAW. It is not a legislated crime. Similarly the right to arms was a general right in common law. We simply would not expect to have seen it written down. Just because Joyce Lee Malcolm could find nothing written down declaring that there existed a right to have arms for self defense she says it did not exist. Worse still she dismisses the declaration of "ancient rights" in the Bill of Rights as "wishful thinking". But she clearly ignores the fact that for thousands of years the people of the British Isles (as virtually everywhere else in the world) had owned and used arms without hindrance. For hunting and for self defense. It is also amazing that Malcolm should regard the 1688 act as a granting of a right when it clearly makes it as plain as possible that it was a restoration of illegally removed pre-existing rights. As for the "stable version" argument, quite frankly it is an absurdly wrong argument. If the text was wrong or misleading then it was wrong or misleading. We should not regard the length of time that it has stood in Misplaced Pages as an argument for not correcting it! --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the viewpoint is wrong. It matters that the viewpoint is verifiable. See WP:NOTTRUTH. By the way, I know you personally disagree with this "English history militia service" thesis. Can you please point to some third party sourcing that also disagrees with this thesis? It is seeming like your outrage is yours alone. SaltyBoatr 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Once can find sources to say anything, and one can use wp:ver to declare nearly any source as not a wp:rs. Most successful articles (as apposed to the eternally unstable mess articles on contentious topics) are guided by a "skeleton" of either expertise on the topic or a general agreement on content, and then have the "flesh" of content and sourcing added. Without the skeleton you just have a pile of hamburger. (random of POV chosen content with shopped sourcing) Towards that end, without YET talking about sourcing (so let's get unwikipedian for one day before we get wikipedian tomorrow) So, sourcing aside, do each of you think of the other guy's content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included? North8000 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am losing you here. Matching the sourcing is non-negotiable per policy. The real dispute is over weight. And per policy, the weight should match that seen in reliable sourcing. And, on one hand we have the version deleted by Hausk which is cited to sixteen footnoted third party sources. And the version favored by Hausk has zero third party sources. Do the math as to the policy neutrality balance we should be using. SaltyBoatr 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing is not a requirement for the talk page. :Still would like to get an answer for: So, sourcing aside, do each of you think of the other guy's content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included?"

I have on open mind. If Hausk can show third party reliable sourcing for his idea, I am willing to weigh it against the other third party reliable sourcing to establish the fair neutrality balance point and craft the text that matches this balance point fairly without bias. But frankly, I don't think Hausk can source his idea, he has had a long time to do this and has failed so far. If Hausk's idea remains to appear to be original research, then my answer is no. Not allowed per WP:NOR policy. Things here must be WP:V, period. SaltyBoatr 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And answering your question about the "skeleton". The seminal book on this topic is by Joyce Lee Malcom, titled "To keep and bear arms: the origins of an Anglo-American right". This book is widely accepted as the definitive reference work on the origins of the Second Amendment being founded in English history. Contrary to what Hausk says, essentially zero criticism of this book has been published. I have checked extensively, and only found two criticism's published, and these both complain that the book is too slanted to the "individual rights" viewpoint. Frankly it is astonishing that Hausk is criticizing this book as not being "individual rights" enough! Keep personal opinion off this talk page, it wastes our time. Let's stick to sources. SaltyBoatr 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of criticism means nothing. Belesiles was praised to high heaven before it was proven he "manufactured" a good portion of his data ( for all I know he may have manufactured all of his data). Some of those praises can still be found on the internet - http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/283/ If Malcolm can show widespread historical instances of the common man (being a common militiaman) being armed by the state, at no cost to himself, then she is right in her POV. Barring those examples she's wrong, and the English militia were armed in the same way the American militias were, by the common man going out and buying his own gun. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to SaltyBoatr's characterization of me as engaging in "WP:SYN" and inserting "personal research" or a "personal hypothesis" and disregarding Malcolm and other WP:RSs.

On the one hand we have the very text of the law which refers to the right to arms as being an ancient one that is being being restored (not created) and then we have Blackstone, a legal commentator from some years later declaring that it was a right auxiliary to the Right to Life. Then we have the US supreme court which has looked at the documents and has declared that the right was a personal one and not dependent on service in the Militia. So a primary source (which is the best kind of source when it comes to legal matters) and two legal opinions, one from two hundred years ago and another from a few months ago. This is also my view. It is not personal only to me.

Then we have the Malcolm fairy tale that the right was not an ancient one but developed out of the duty to have arms and peaked with a granting of a right to Protestants only in the English Law and then later perfected in the Second Amendment to the US constituton without any religious discrimination. Malcolm completely dismisses the reference to ancient rights in the the English law as being "wishful thinking" and then goes on to completely ignore what Blackstone has said. (Blackstone was one of the foremost jurists of his time). But her ONLY REASON for doing this is that she cannot find any reference to a right to arms of the people in any law prior to the Bill of Rights of 1689!!! (Search YouTube for Joyce Lee Malcolm and you'll hear her actually say this). Well that is pure stupidity because the common law is not to be found in any written laws!!! It is based on natural justice interpreted over the years.

SaltyBoatr wants us to ignore the fact that this revisionist theory has not received much support (least of all from the US Supreme Court) and to re write English history in this section after Malcolm, telling the fairy tale of a developing right emanating from military service obligation. He claims that my text is "not reflective of the point of view seen in the majority of the sourcing". All I can say to that is BOLLOCKS! (This is me being "blokish" and is not intended to offend) There is no great mass of historians who have come to revise the view that the right to have arms was an ancient one and was "created" in the English Bill of Rights. He has no basis in fact for asserting that this is now the majority view. Malcolm and the few others Salty likes to cite are a self supporting cabal of writers with an NRA related agenda. I have no agenda. I do not live in the U.S. and I am not affected by U.S. gun laws. I am English and therefore I do have an interest in English History. I was appalled to see my country's history being turned upsidedown by a few cranky American historians. The English Bill of Rights did NOT create a new right to have arms and it did not deny Catholics the right to arms. Catholics before and after the Bill of Rights continued to have the right to have arms and I defy anyone to prove me wrong on this. There are many English laws that did discriminate against Catholics but in this case the right to have arms for self defence was not one of them.

Now, North8000 asked me two things. One was about my interests and yes I am way more interested in English history than I am about the US constitution. The other was "do (I) think (SaltyBoatr's) content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included? Well the article does mention the Malcolm thesis and the text that is there in the article currently was added by me. I do object to Salty's inserting up front in the article the discussion about militias because I fear that he is telling the Malcolm myth (ok, thesis) about a developing right. It is a POV but it should not be given undue prominence because it is not widely accepted. The English history section already says the following about militias

"In both England and America, subjects and citizens have created militias. Beginning with King Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181, certain English subjects were obligated to keep and bear arms for military duty. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, the Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary. Without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots."

That is largely from Malcolm and is fine as far as it goes. We should not begin the section with this text as it strays too close to telling the myth of the "developing right" (or which is, at best, a minority point of view).--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I could again go through Hausk's repetition of his argument and, once again, re-refute using secondary sourcing. (In the interest of saving space, I won't repeat it, you can read it above in the archives.) Repeating the key point: The Malcolm book has been very widely accepted. The outlying position here is that held by Haskalainen. Notice that, once again, his argument hinges solely on his interpretation of these 250 year old documents and that he does not cite any third party sourcing in support of his viewpoint. SaltyBoatr 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, and again, this is prior to talking about sourcing, which would immediately follow, Hauskalainen answer is that he feels that the militia based developing right (in England) concept is wrong and/ or a small minority approach, and Salty won't won't say what he personally thinks about Haskalainen's common law/ natural right (in England) statements. Again, this is a useful discussion, separated (temporarily, for 1 day) separated from sourcing discussions.

With respect to Malcolm as a source, Salty has said that she is in general a reliable source, and is not particularly biased on the 2A. Haskalainen has said that Malcolm is wrong and thus unreliable with respect to this particular topic. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) as moderator/organizer

No. Malcolm is heavily biased towards the "individual rights" viewpoint, being one of the founders of the so-called "Standard model" movement. Still, she is widely accepted. SaltyBoatr 14:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I revise my last paragraph to: With respect to Malcolm as a source, Salty has said that she is in general a reliable source. Haskalainen has said that Malcolm is wrong and thus unreliable with respect to this particular topic which is English history.North8000 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Being precise here might be helpful. I am not going to speak to my opinion on the reliability of Malcolm on this talk page. Actually, I have said that when I checked reliable sourcing, I see that her viewpoint is very broadly accepted. And, Hauskalainen says that Malcolm is not widely accepted. (Hauskalainen has not identified any third party evidence of his assertion, it appears to be fanciful.) SaltyBoatr 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not said that Malcolm is wrong throughout her book, nor have I said that are not some who agree with her about her novel "developing right" thesis. I do say that I see no evidence of any evidence of widespread acceptance of the "developing right" thesis by other major English historians. I see no real substantive evidence from Malcolm justifying her dismissal of the wording of the Bill of Rights nor her reasons for rejecting Blackstone comments. I do see that the Supreme Court has not accepted the fundamental tenet of her argument (that the right developed out of a military context) nor that it did not exist as a general right prior to the Bill of Rights. It explicitly rejected both these claims. (This presumably written by Hauskalainen)

Just as a sidebar, there is another dimension to reliability of a source, which is respect to the topic at hand. An Albert Einstein book might be a reliable source for relativity topics, but if it made commentary on another topic it might be unreliable with respect to that topic. Could it be the Malcolm is generally reliable, but not reliable with respect to summarizing / characterizing old English history? North8000 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Malcolm is an English historian albeit at a minor university. She does have an agenda and is aligned with a certain clique (if I can put it that way) or writers who appear to support each other. A minority of people, however vocal, is still a minority. Now I know that Salty is likely to bear down on me to "prove" with references that mainstream English historians have not come over to her view. But that is unrealistic as the entire topic about which she write is only really of interest to those seeking to defend gun rights in the USA and that simply does not excite most English historians. But this argument is getting a bit silly because I do not want to exclude the Malcolm argument. The article already mentions that some people prefer the developing right theory. It is already mentioned. My view is that it should NOT dominate the order of discussion because that would give undue weight to a theory that is full of holes. We can discuss the holes if you like but that would be just my opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please! North8000 says "other major English historians". And, Hauskalainen says "mainstream English historians". Tell us by name, who are these historians? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 17:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a mixup...I didn't say that. Somehow that paragraph was unsigned and it might have looked like I wrote it. Now I marked it as probably by Hauskalainen. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we stop for a moment, no need for another ten thousand words. Who exactly are these "English historians" that Hauskalainen keeps mentioning? Answer please before we proceed. SaltyBoatr 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest ANY English historian who has NOT written specifically on the subject of the Second Amendment and the U.S. legal challenges. i.e. someone completely divorced from the small world of people with a vested interest in the American interpretation of English Law. I guess ideally that should be a British scholar, but I have no strong feeling on the nationality. There is a little clique of writers at work here who quote one another and give credence to ideas not deserving of them. I am sick to death of reading material that implies that the English Bill of Rights granted a right or protected a right. English law simply does not grant rights. It balances rights. Your right to free speech, my right not to be slandered; Your right to do as you want in your own home; my right as your neighbour not to have to listen to your Led Zeppelin albums at 3 in the morning; Your right to defend your life with a weapon, my right not to become an accidental or deliberate victim of that weapon. There is an assumption that the English Bill of Rights was a bill of rights in the more modern sense. It simply was not. The "right" to have arms in 1688 would be better described as a "liberty" - just like my liberty to keep milk in my fridge. It's OK as long as it does not interfere with the liberties of others. That is what the gaming laws were about. It was decided (rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view) that the rights of landowners with gaming rights to enjoy their game was not compatible with the freedom of those with no gaming rights to have access to the ideal weapon with which to hunt game that did not belong to them (and even to use that weapon for self defense). As I understand matters, early English law was quite protective of the right to life. If you were being attacked by someone, your first duty was not to fight back but to flee if at all possible and wait until the person attacking you had cooled down. The use of a gun as an offensive weapon would have been quote abhorrent to most ordinary people but of course it was used was by the elites to further their power struggles. The battles between Cavaliers and Roundheads was really a struggle between two sets of elites. Your average artisan or farm laborer would have tried to keep out of it. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice that when asked "which historian" he was talking about, (and Hausk has said that multiple historians agree with his position), Hauskalainen could not mention even one of these historians by name. Sorry, this boils down to a failure to WP:Verify. Until such a date that Hausk can cite specific sources, the English history section (currently in the article) fails to meet policy. Also notice that Hauskalainen makes what amounts to a statement here that he is an amateur historian. What we have here is an amateur historian trying to publish his personal historical research into this article. That is a WP:NOR violation. SaltyBoatr 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee states that the followers of the "Standard Model" take the position that the English Bill of Rights protected the right to arms. http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html This textual argument is also supported by reference to history. Standard Model scholars muster substantial evidence that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms. The first piece of evidence for this proposition is that such a right was protected by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Malcolm by not supporting this viewpoint, is not in the mainstream of "standard model" theory. To stop the expected Salty opposition to a "gun nuts" site not being a reliable source, the article by Reynolds is a reprint from 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1995)71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah its my amateur historian personal historical research and all those references to the text of the 1689 Bill, the words of Wm Blackstone, and the opinion of the US Supreme Court are not worth the paper they are written on and not worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Yeah hell! Exactly what is it in the section that we are discussing are you complaining about now? The section mentions the "developing rights" thesis as one POV. What do you want to do? Re-write as the ONLY POV or as if it is the LEADING POV?--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. The English History section dispute is still an open issue, with that section being rife with Hauskalainen's amateur historian personal historical research. SaltyBoatr 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What is an open issue, nay an open sore, is your continuing attempts to control the content of the article to push your discredited militia based garbage.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For Salty

Salty seems to be unaware where the individual right language unconnected with service in the militia came from

From the Heller opinion is where - see the short version or Syllabus for easy confirmation

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that passage in Heller. All it says is that protection of the right of self protection within the home is unconnected to service in militia. It does not say that the states' militia rights are no longer protected from infringement by the federal government. SaltyBoatr 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the second time, on the topic of what you just wrote, I think that you are arguing a point that everyone already agrees with you on. Do you really not understand this, or you just saying this again to obstruct forward progress? North8000 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (as participant)

Would you clarify to who you are addressing your question? SaltyBoatr 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this. Salty, I was addressing it to you. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

SB - Are you saying that the article should state that SCOTUS has recognized a limited individual right, but has not ruled on whether there is a separate state right? SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the holding of Heller was about a narrow question, self defense within the home in DC. Heller did not overturn Miller, Presser, or Cruikshank. If we are going to say that the Second Amendment only protects a self defensive right, then we need some excellent sourcing that says this unambiguously. Otherwise, we need to continue to give coverage to the militia protection provided by the 2A which we see described in the sourcing. SaltyBoatr 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! "Such as" is not the same as "ONLY as". Also: Your militia based garbage was described as the ravings of loonies - aka "worthy of the mad hatter". The right was described as an individual right by ALL justices in the opinion and both dissents. NOBODY pushed the collective right models. 71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

The text does not limit the right to self defense in the home as you keep POV pushing. "Such as" implies that there are other legal ways to use the right. - The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The states rights to TRAIN AND CONTROL the militia is protected within the body of the Constitution. The states ability to FIELD an armed universal militia armed with personal weapons is defended by the Second. If the feds disarm the militia, there is OBVIOUSLY no militia to train and control, as the states are BARRED from arming their militia members. See body of Constitution for that as well.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. Above you said of the militia protection "dead as a doornail" and now you are saying (I think) the Second Amendment is important protection to the states fielding of a militia. It follows then that this article should give coverage to the militia point of view, in addition to the self protection point of view. SaltyBoatr 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your point about the words "such as". First you are quoting from dicta in Heller which is non-binding. Second, you are making prohibited interpretation of a primary document. Third, when you check sourcing, such as and you see that after two years and over 200 court cases this hypothetical "such as" you point to has not manifest itself in the courts. Presently, Heller's only tangible change is for the handgun owners in the District of Columbia for the purposes of immediate self defense within the home. Any other "such as" change needs to be sourced, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SaltyBoatr 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep this simple, you don't have to be in the militia to get a gun, BUT if you are in the militia you CAN GET A GUN, so you can be an EFFECTIVE member instead of just a target!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing with us, telling us what you believe. You don't seem to understand how Misplaced Pages works. The way Misplaced Pages works is that we are to look what the third party reliable sourcing says, and then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing, even if that sourcing disagrees with what we personally believe. Take your personal opinion elsewhere. SaltyBoatr 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time anyone you know received a gun from the feds because he was a member of the general militia? If the feds won't give you a gun, and the states are FORBIDDEN from giving you a gun, then you need to buy a gun yourself.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From Reuters article - mentions both Landmark ruling (IE significant - discussed elsewhere on this page) and Individual Right. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Your Reuters article is dated June 26, 2008. The Heller decision was issued that same day, June 26, 2008. That article is pure speculation of the future, I even wonder if the reporter had time to read the court opinion. Certainly they did not know how the courts would interpret Heller. Why not read the many excellent articles that have been published in 2009 and 2010 which have had the benefit of time to give a viewpoint? (That's a question, answer please.) This article written in 2009 by Sanford Levinson is very well considered and carries a lot of weight, and was written without the pure speculation of your Reuter's article. Professor Levinson says that: "Heller will not produce significant change to the American legal landscape". Which is it, Reuters or Levinson? (That's a question, answer please.) It seems this is a clear case of editor selection bias, confirmation bias, where you seek out just the articles about the topic that favor your personal point of view (and avoid reading articles that disagree with your worldview. SaltyBoatr 14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My point SB is that you claim that the POV that Heller is not a big deal is the only reality. I was searching articles that showed the opposite POV precisely because you asked people to provide RS that showed that Heller IS a big deal. Now you're complaining that I did it? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you keep (I think deliberately) mixing up covering the findings of Heller with writing about their effects. Other than the 2A itself, nothing could be more important that covering the finding of the US Supreme Court regarding the 2A. But you are in essence saying "the findings aren't supposed to be covered, instead it's more appropriate to displace this displace that coverage with people's opinions on what the effect will be. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your use of the word "findings" to mean selections from the dicta of Heller. Yes, there is a lot of dicta (findings) written in Heller. Which do we focus upon, and which do we ignore?" The problem here is that you are choosing out "the findings" to match a point of view you want to push which reflects your personal hope that Heller somehow supports a broad "individual right" to arms. With two years of hindsight, there is no denying the pattern seen in 200+ court cases, Heller did not mean that the SCOTUS supported a broad "individual right" to arms. I am instead, reading the sources which have analyzed this and give focus to "the findings" that have been deemed important by the courts and now form a solid precedence as to interpretation of "Second Amendment" protected individual rights. SaltyBoatr 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the findings in the summary of the Heller by the Cornell School of Law, or a summary of expert summaries of the DECISION ITSELF. And untainted and unimpaired by the lens of an editorialist's (faulty or otherwise) inferences from post-Heller pre-McDonald lower level court cases. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cornell summary was written July 12, 2008. 18 days after the court opinion. Due to that timing, inevitably their summary was speculative, which you call "untainted and unimpaired". Why give something written 18 days after the ruling more weight than 2010 expert analysis of intervening events that has had the benefit clarity of hindsight? (I can guess your honest answer would be that you personally like it because it matches your personal POV.) In any case, WP:NPOV requires us to view all the reliable sourcing, and give fair weight without bias. In light of that policy, why should we ignore the recent expert analysis? SaltyBoatr 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Because one is ON the subject (the Supreme Court findings) and one is OFF the subject (someone's opinion of the impact of the findings)! North8000 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cornell summary you describe actually is someones speculative opinion of the likely importance of the ruling, made shortly after the decision. Two years later, that speculation has not been born out as confirmed. So, try to answer my question again: Why should we ignore the recent expert analysis? SaltyBoatr 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This 'well regulated' edit needs explanation

This edit by Yaf, made with the edit summary "Meaning of "well regulated militia": removing original research statement from citation that had the impact of turning the meaning by exactly 180 degrees (intentional?))" needs some explanation. Yaf, please explain what you mean. SaltyBoatr 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Point 2 which Yaf revised was about what "regulated" meant and not what "well-regulated" meant. I didn't like it before the change and I don't like it after, but I am willing to live with either version. I would prefer that that part 2 of that section be deleted completely as it has nothing to do with the term "well-regulated" used in the Second. After Heller alternate meanings of the phrase "well regulated" are moot anyway. No court is likely to give those alternate meanings any weight.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Lead?

Salty, you keep unilaterally making huge, un-discussed controversial changes to the recently consensused lead. Let's have a real discussion.

I suspect that we will need to add and hammer out a new section which is the Heller/McDonald findings before we can truly get 90% settled on modifications to the lead. We are trying to summarize a major missing section from the article. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been diligently discussing on the talk page, see above. Also, I strongly disputed your assessment that the intro is "consensus". It was not. Also, it is interesting that you single me out for making article changes, and falsely accuse me of not using the talk page. But you tolerate major changes made by other editors who actually don't use the talk page while making major controversial changes to the article (often with misleading edit summaries). Why single on just me? (I am tempted to guess it has to do with POV sympathy.) Explain the odd appearance please. SaltyBoatr 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because (in addition to all of the Wikipedian reasons) a portion of the additions that I was complaining about was flat out incorrect. BTW, for me, the mission and obligation when working on an article is that it be accurate.....all else is secondary (including my or anybody's POV). The worst I've seen from others recently in the lead is injecting ambiguity with the "individual right" term, except that Hauskalainen's revrsion of my reversion re-injected some of your incorrect material, and I did sort of complain to him, so you didn't get all of the fun.  :-) That is a no-BS answer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To Hauskalainen (on your edit notes in your revrt to my revert) that's looks close to what it said but is different in important ways. I'm not going to just revert again, let's sort it out. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I put in all of quote from Heller instead of the partial that was there before. It should be the least objectionable to all. I don't agree to salty "presumably unconstitutional" as many court cases are in the pipeline. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you meant "presumably constitutional"  :-). Salty saying this (without the examples given by SCOTUS with it) is actually a mile off. There is nothing in this decision nor in subsequent lower court cases which indicates that existing gun control laws are in general presumably constitutional. The examples that the court gave are all of the less controversial type. (e.g. guns in schools, insane people etc.). I think that we're going to need better Heller and McDonald finding sections to summarize from before we can stabilize the lead. The end is bad as-is after the last change which is Salty's North8000 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous! Are you willfully avoiding acknowledging the sources I have pointed to? There is solid excellent third party sourcing that flatly says that the operative dicta from Heller, after nearly 200 post-Heller federal court rulings, are the words Again, again, and again the lower federal courts have ruled: "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55) were deemed "regulations ... as permissible" (Heller, pg 63).SaltyBoatr 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Prior to July to 2010 Heller was not applicable to state and local laws, so how could state and local law cases prior to July 2010 be applicable to a discussion of the impact of Heller? North8000 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, I looked at the first ~50 cases in that third reference, and all fell under the examples that Heller gave of permissible laws which were the non-controversial or less controversial laws. (e.g. possession by felons). The ones really to be tested are the ones making it highly difficult or burdensome for everyday people to own guns, making those cases doubly weak to try to put an opinion-sentence-as-fact in the lead. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal laws banning guns in school zones were declared unconstitutional in the 70's (forgot the case) as they did not fall under interstate commerce. Federal law on school zones still applies to non-state territories such as DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and assorted island groups. States have to pass their own laws to create no gun zones.71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It was in 1995 and the case is United States v. Lopez. SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@SMP0328 It is interesting you would mention Lopez, (and tacitly support the misinterpretation of its importance by ignoring Raich.). Interesting I stay because Sanford Levinson (who is so important to this article) recently wrote a thoughtful article that compares Heller to Lopez. Both cases were initially trumpeted as having great significance and were considered to be legal watersheds. And, after the the dust settled, in practical terms both have "...turned out to be relatively unimportant". Read his paper, it is interesting. This undue emphasis on Heller is making article look silly. SaltyBoatr 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 Answering your question: Did you read this article from SCOTUSblog which I ref'ed to you before? The answer is there. In short, 42 states have state Constitutions that do already explicitly protect an individual right to firearms. So, only the other 8 states will be affected. Also, McDonald just incorporated the protection outlined in Heller. With Heller we already have an excellent data set, 200 cases already, of how the courts will be interpreting gun laws. The pattern is crystal clear, essentially every gun law presently on the books has been found to be permissible under Heller, (indicating that McDonald will be the same). Professor Winkler has studied the gun laws in all of the 8 States where McDonald has an effect an has found no laws that amount to unconstitutional 'handgun bans', and therefore he has predicted that McDonald will have zero effect. SaltyBoatr 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it will have some effect in Washington DC, Chicago and the Chicago suburbs.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored US Supreme Court language from Heller after Salty replaced it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again restored key points of Heller to the lead. BTW: Heller held that THREE DC laws were unconstitutional, not one as Salty would like people here to think.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new section: "US Supreme Court Determinations"

This is the "gorilla in the living room" that is missing from (hidden in) this article. And yes, the deliberately general term "determinations" is proposed North8000 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heller Decision

The following is a start, pasted in directly from from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html which appears to be a good summary by the Cornell School of law?:

Held:

(1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

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

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

McDonald Decision

Ruled the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authorityNorth8000 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Break Added Later for Clarity

Some of the above is already reflected (but spread out) in the article. I think that a section labeled something like "Current status of the Second in the Courts" immediately following the lead, and including many of the items listed above would go a long way toward satisfying those who think that Heller and McDonald are not getting enough prime real estate in the article. I think that 1, 1a 1b, and condensed versions of 2 and 3 from above, should be in that section. Historical material should stay in the body of the article. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree (I think) But how bout "Current status of the Second in the Supreme Court" My main concern is that Heller and McDonald findings are currently obscured is a sea of lower level court cases, and that, within those Heller/McDonald sections, the findings of Heller and McDonald are obscured in a sea of other topics of those cases. I don't want to open the door to bury / camoflage those findings in this new section as well, or we will be back to where we started. I think that condensation would be good, but if we get mired down in sourcing debates, we could just go back to the full version. This appears to be a very expert distillation of the findings of Heller from a reliable, objective, prominent source. They don't appear to have one yet on McDonald, but McDonald is much simpler. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to cover the main points but not go into too much detail. Too much detail and the important stuff gets hidden yet again, which is why I am opposed to including historical material in that section. See above for what I think needs to be included. Add to that list the McDonald language and you have a good starting point and maybe even a good ending point.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I didn't understand the "see above". Let's draft a title and then I'll create a workspace. Here's my attempt: "Supreme Court Status of the Second Amendment" North8000 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From above "I think that 1, 1a 1b, and condensed versions of 2 and 3 from above," should be included.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@NORTH8000 Sorry, not sure where to write this, but referring to your attempt to summarize Heller above, where you start with the word "Held..." No, you got this wrong. Held??? You are listing a number of the items from opinion's dicta. The holding from Heller is (and I quote): "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional." The entire holding of Heller was the invalidation of the oridinance 7-2507.02. All the stuff you write about comes from the non-binding dicta.

I don't know where you want to go with your "determinations" section, but it amounts to an attempt to elevate importance the portions of the non-binding dicta which you personally feel have more importance. This is violating WP:NOR. The proper way to approach this is to check the sourcing and see which portions of the dicta have in fact become important by the courts. The dicta from Heller which the courts have actually treated with importance are not the passages you which to emphasize, but rather are found on Heller pages 55 & 63. "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" were deemed "regulations ... as permissible". We have seen 200 cases now, and the other dicta you point to has been ignored by the courts, so why should we give it importance? That you personally like it is not a good enough reason. SaltyBoatr 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, about 5 of the things just said are wrong. I'll just address the one faulty foundation of all of them. The "Held" was the term that the Cambridge School of Law used to describe all of those determinaitons that I listed. (see the provided link). As I noted, I just pasted in the text that they wrote, including the "held" heading. Why don't you go tell the Cambridge School of Law per your novel legal theory that they are wrong?. Now, will you finally quit with this "they're dicta so they don't count" baloney.?North8000 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the disclaimer on your link: "The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court". Should we ignore the disclaimer? Plus, the syllabus is two years old. We really should be looking at this topic in the present, without blinders on. There has been two years and 200 court cases since 2008. The dust has begun to settle on Heller, and the results are pretty clear now. The practical effect of Heller has been to affirm longstanding prohibitions. And, actually, the holding is the holding which I quoted. What about the other 4 our of 5 things? SaltyBoatr 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer is saying that that is The Cornell Law School's summary of the Heller decision, not something written by the Supreme court. So we don't and don't need to ignore the disclaimer, we just need to ignore what you are mis-implying it says. Salty, you keep throwing up a continuous smokescreen of patently false and illogical points, I don't have time to address and refute the same ones over and over again, especially, since whenever where get to the core of a discussion on one of them you bail out and change the subject. But, briefly, those cases didn't contest or ignore the findings of Heller that the Cornell Law School listed. So they are not indicative of the impact or non-impact of Heller. The impact of Heller in the courts remains to be seen, because the cases are state and local laws, which Heller didn't clearly apply to until July 2010. The non-court impacts of Heller were substantial. I think that all of the outright handgun bans were repealed except Chicago, and Chicago's is now gone as a result of the McDonald decision. IMHO state and local laws of the non-controversial or less controversial types exampled in Heller are likely to stand. The open question is what will happen to laws that harass everyday gun ownership without outright prohibiting it, such as Chicago's brand new law which replaces the one they ditched within days of the McDonald decision. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusation of "continuous smokescreen", see WP:CIVIL. I am just wanting to stick with WP:V as to the actual impact of Heller and McDonald. I have shown you reliable sourcing from 2010 that the actual impact is quite limited. Do you have recent sourcing that the actual impact is significant? Your 2008 sourcing was speculative and not born out by 200+ court cases now settled. Also, if you are going to hang your hat on the premise that after 200+ court cases that this is an "open question", please read WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and come back later when you are satisfied that it is a settled question. In mean time please quit you attempts to inject your POV here. Your imagination of "The open question is what will happen to the laws that harass everyday gun ownership without outright prohibiting it", actually is no longer an open question as of March 26, 2010. It is now settled law too, see here, and pay special attention to what that judge has to say about "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". You and I may not agree on personal opinion, so instead lets read the sourcing, and match what we read fairly and without bias. SaltyBoatr 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if my "smokescreen" choice of words was too strong. Salty, in short, there are things that the Supreme Court has ruled on or held, and there are things that it has not ruled on. What I am out to do here is accurately cover, in a non-obscured way, the things that it HAS ruled on or held....basicaly the things in the Cornell School of law summary. Not to try to characterize, mis-characterize, spin, editorialize on, theorize on, project etc. on the impact or non-impact of Heller on gun laws and court cases, especially since Heller did not take effect on state and local law court cases until July 2010. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, if what you want is to accurately cover what the SCOTUS has ruled on, why not use the current 2010 sources? It seems odd that you choose to focus on the speculation written in June of 2008 (the Cornell summary) as to what was going to be important about Heller, when they didn't actually know what was going to important about Heller. The Cornell summary is pure speculation. Well. Today we actually happen to know what the courts have seen to be important about Heller, in Federal courts (200+ cases now and counting). The results have been nearly unanimous. It is now 2010, and we do know how Heller has been interpreted in court. You seem to willfully ignore the more modern sources because the 2008 source better fits your personal POV desires here.

Regarding McDonald, you say we don't know. OK. Then stop speculating, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I think actually, that we do know a lot about McDonald, based on this expert analysis. 1) It only affects 8 States. 2) McDonald subsumes the precedent established by Heller as to the scope of the protection and standard of review. 3) One study of the laws in these 8 states (actually all 50) indicate that there are no laws that are 'handgun bans' which McDonald would over turn. According to this expert source, McDonald will have minimal effect. SaltyBoatr 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing about the SCOTUS Heller findings is writing about a 2008 event. How is that "speculating"? I'm talking about writing about 2008 facts! You keep trying to obscure that with opinionating on the effects of those facts. Can't you see the fundamental difference!!!North8000 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is which facts are important from 2008. We have the benefit of 20:20 vision now in 2010 looking at 2008. We can read the recent analysis of which facts were important, and which were not. The difference here it seems is that you want to focus on just the "facts" you like from Heller. I want to respect what third party reliable sources have written in 2010 that describes the actual impact from Heller. You seem more focused on the symbolic parts of Heller, those that match your personal bias. Had the results of Heller resulted in the overturning of gun laws that pertain to individuals, things would be different. We would see that written in the sourcing and I would be here arguing to focus on the 'individual rights' aspect of Heller. That didn't happen. 200+ court cases now, and the results of Heller are crystal clear. The operative portion of Heller is not the dicta describing 'individual rights' (as nearly everybody exptected in 2008). The operative portion of Heller is the "presumptively lawful" wording on page 56. In 2010, we have solid third party sourcing saying what the meaning of Heller has been. Let's be candid, and fairly report what we read. (And, not just what we want to read.) By the way, do you have any sourcing from 2010 that gives analysis of Heller saying that it was an important advancement in overturning gun laws in favor of 'individual rights'? You don't because there isn't any. SaltyBoatr 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, we are going in circles. It has become clear that you continue to sidestep / avoid the pure simple logic aspect of the conversation regarding coverage of the findings of the Heller Supreme court decision. These are landmark decision on what were previously long time core questions, even if they don't go to the finish line regarding the constitutionality of various specific gun restrictions. I'm talking about covering the simple facts of the 2008 decision as e.g. as very well summarized by the Cornell School of Law. You are saying that we shouldn't cover 2008 facts, but should instead cover your op-ed columists' spun opinions and faulty conclusions on the impact of those facts. You have been completely unresponsive to (and avoiding) and discussion of these simple issues. So, I am giving up on and signing off on this particular conversation. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

North8000 You just mentioned: "your op-ed columists' spun opinions and faulty conclusions". Which exactly are you speaking of? Mostly I am looking at scholarship written by university professors, and published by scholarly sources like SCOTUSblog, reputable law school journals, etc.. It is seeming that you are showing Confirmation bias now, and that things that don't match your personal world view must be invalidated. SaltyBoatr 14:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What I had in mind was that New York Times editorial ("article") that you gave me as one of those three sources. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read re the impact of Heller can be found at Second Amendment Redux and Second Amendment Revolution article in Harvard Law Record and the ACLU rethinking it's 2A stance (that's gotta be significant) and protecting an individual right . I could go on and on and on. Despite anyone's claim that there are no reliable sources, sources abound in support of the inidividual rights interpretation of the Heller decision, as well as the significance. I'm not say the source SB points to should be excluded, but it does seem to be a minority POV (that Heller was not significant). AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are right. The underlying issue is that Salty wants to have/use a completely different subject (to) occlude this one.North8000 (talk).

Finally, a willingness to consult with reliable sources. Yes, I very much welcome using that article about the symposium about Heller held sponsored by the Harvard Law Record. At to your article written by Robert A. Levy we would need to weigh that carefully because he was the main person financing the Heller lawsuit so he is definitely not considered "third party". It is interesting that our article current introduction is contradicted by Robert Levy, who uses the words: "(t)he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, unconnected with militia service" The sentence we use is incorrectly worded, and the sentence Mr. Levy uses is correctly worded.

Regarding your Kat Williams article in the Washington time, that seems a little weak on scholarship and heavy on editorial opinion. But certainly, it give some color to the issue of a shift in an American point of view about guns that has been evident and trending since the mid 1980's. I would support giving this fair and neutral coverage in the article. And, it is a little silly give weight to an article written by Kat Williams and to then call an article by the 2A titan Sanford Levinson a minority POV, or is it that what you say about any viewpoint that doesn't match your personal viewpoint? Do you have an opinion of Joyce Lee Malcolm too? SaltyBoatr 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement is green is not wrong, because the juxtaposition of the two separate findings results in describing one correct instance. What IS wrong is to imply that it is a summary of the findings on those two topics or to use it as such. Those were two separate things that the Supreme Court held. The "not conditional on militia" is a stand alone statement, not conditional on home defense. It does not specify the rights, it says that whatever the rights are or are determined to be, such is not conditional on service in a militia. For example, if SCOTUS said that you have a right to buy a Chevy, and, separately held that you have a right to buy a green car, while it is true to say that you have a right to buy a green Chevy, but such is not a summary of those two findings. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, the lead is messed up because you started doing huge rapid fire unconsensued changes on it after it was consensused, plunging it back into instability. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop it with the "consensused", it was not. And blaming me for the instability is astonishing revisionism. The intro was stable for months, and I had nothing to do with starting the present instability, done by edit war was hardly a good example of building a consensus, (where is your criticism of that?). I would support using the Robert A. Levy's summary sentence, in green above. I do object to the current sentence in the intro because it implies too much based on what we see in the sourcing today. Switching the Robert Levy wording now. SaltyBoatr 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion and development of the text is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_32 in the "proposed revised lead" section. Now you have made the lead even worse. As just discussed, (mis)using that sentence to describe the findings is inaccurate, even though the sentence is not false.North8000 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it. It will take careful work to get to a good accurate lead, and such is not possible in the environment of the moment that you have created with multiple large unilateral changes in the lead that you have been making. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the lead back to the US Supreme Court language from Heller. In a aside, the lead was stable only because when we tried changing it, Salty got the article frozen, not once but TWICE, and if I recall correctly made threats to have it frozen for a third time.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's now the closest as anything recently seen to the consensused one. Probably the biggest difference is that the consensused one also included the text of the amendment. Redundant of course to the next section, but it's just one sentence and the subject of the article. Eventually we should tweak it to deal with the use of the "individual right" term, which if/as used without explanation is ambiguous. In Heller and other higher level court cases, that term has meant simply that "militia is not a condition on any 2A right", rather than that term establishing particular rights. But that should be done in careful manner without opening up the lead to be rototilled every 2 days. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

False. The closest thing to a consensus introduction was this version which was stable for months. The version now transparently seeks to leave an illusion that a nebulous 'individual right' is protected, when the stark reality is that the 'individual' aspect of the right has been very narrowly defined to be within the home. We got around this problem before by keeping the wording ambiguous. Now, there is a POV push. This is a major problem because it is high profile in the introduction and this problem warrants a POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr 14:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts. "Individual right" was the term used by the Supreme Court, which DEFINES the reality that is being covered. At worst it is ambiguous as in there and should eventually be clarified/defined, or possibly taken out until it is so clarified/defined. And again, the development and discussion for what I'm referring to as the consensued lead is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_32 in the "proposed revised lead" section.North8000 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, we should develop at least one or two new sections. One is that (whatever we call it) "2A status in the Supreme court." seciton. I'll create a work area for that. The other is that if Salty really wants "impact or non-impact of Heller & McDonald" covered, we could start that section. I think that the inferences drawn by Salty and 1-2 sources from lower level post-Heller pre-McDonald court cases are dubious, but such is the type of thing that could get hashed out when creating that section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the Oxford dictionary meaning of to bear arms

Out of curiosity I went to my local library to check what the Oxford Dictionary had to on the term to "bear arms". Surprisingly considering the bruhaha on this topic, the Oxford Dictionary HAS NO ENTRY ON TO "BEAR ARMS". It groups usage into 4 general categories with over 40 variations on the meaning. Not a single variation was on the term to "bear arms". The closest was an example of usage using the phrase "to bear arms against". This was, if I remember right, a 12 volume set of books taking up a good section of a shelf. The library also has a condensed version of the Oxford Dictionary, a 2 volume set, which has no reference at all to the phrase "to bear arms" even in an example.

Looks like Spitzer lied on his article for the same reason he cheated on his wife. Because he thought he could get away with it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for keeping it relevant, pal. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisit the Lead?

Whether or not one editor's "POV" tag gets left up, the lead is a bit modified since we consensused it about a week ago. (discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_32) should we revisit it?

IMHO I would still like to have the text of the amendment (it's just one sentence) actually in the lead. But other than that, or even without that change, I think that it is good as is. Presuming a brief lead, it objectively covers meanings of it's as defined by the Supreme Court, which creates the authorative definitions and interpretation.

Unless we open/expand the lead to include a wide range of other topics, it would certainly not be correct to include editorial viewpoints on the effects of the Heller decision as one editor is promoting, especially since the inferences drawn have obvious serious flaws, starting with the fact that Heller was not even applicable to those court cases, all of them being prior to the McDonald decision which made Heller applicable to them. Second, the qualifier inherent in such a topic selection (short term effects in lower courts of a decision where no such short term effects would be expected) makes such barely marginal for inclusion in the article per Undue Weight & POV, much less for inclusion in the lead. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It shows bad faith, I think, to keep calling the instability of the introduction these last few weeks "consensused". Plainly false. I suggest we go back to the actual consensus lead, with the ambiguous wording, the stable version that existed with minor changes in the wording for more than a year. SaltyBoatr 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the very recent instability, I was referring to the version developed at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_32. And a part of the impetus for that work is that the version that you are promoting was clearly obsoleted by the McDonald decision, and also missing major elements of the Heller decision. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the version in Archive 32 was a consensus version. Also, tossing your personal opinions about "major elements" of the Heller decision defies logic, because the actual consensus intro version was stable throughout 2009-2010, a time period that was post-Heller. And, your pushing of meaning onto McDonald also seems like a personal POV push, as McDonald has been only remanded for re-trial, with the re-trial still being a thing of the future. SaltyBoatr 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving up on this particular exchange. If you are still insisting on the ridiculous assertion that the only thing McDonald decided was to remand a Chicago law for retrial, then this exchange is a waste of time. By that same type of reasoning, Roe vs. Wade, didn't legalize abortion, it just set aside a Texas law. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your analogy. Roe v. Wade has had a significant and verifiable effect seen in reliable sourcing. McDonald has not had any significant and verifiable effect seen in reliable sourcing. There is a HUGE difference between these two cases. SaltyBoatr 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

McDonald was very recently decided. Are you suggesting that McDonald is unimportant? SMP0328. (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, answering your question, you are a smart person, I think that you follow it exactly, but just want to blockade the article by avoiding acknowledging it. But in case you didn't, you keep trying to blockade the article from covering the Heller and McDonald determinations by pretending that they only thing that those court cases held / found/ determined were the outcomes on the individual cases involved. And the analogy would be that that same faulty argument would say that the only determination of Roe vs. Wade was disposition of that particular Texas law, rather than the "dicta" as you call them which legalized abortion.North8000 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Salty, quit adding your Scarlet Letter to the article. Also, you are giving McDonald an overly narrow reading. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States. You want to read that decision to only be about the remand, which has been mooted by Chicago's replacement of its gun ban with a new law. Finally, you seem to be under the impression that any change to the Introduction is "instability" if done without reaching consensus on this talk page. That would result in a de facto full protection on the Introduction regarding any change thereto with which you disagree. You're attempt to FP this article failed, so interpreting consensus to require that result regarding any part of this article is unacceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The text of the tag says: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". It does not say Scarlet Letter. Explain yourself please. Also, explain why you edit war this POV tag, and why you marked your revert with a "minor" tag? Which part of the POV tag text is incorrect or inappropriate? SaltyBoatr 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no real dispute. You just feel that any editor that edits this article in a way that's inconsistent with your viewpoint is violating NPOV. It is you who is violating NPOV and the ownership prohibition. You do not seek consensus; you seek submission to your viewpoint. When other editors refuse to submit to your will, you claim there's a dispute and add a POV tag and/or attempt to get the article fully protected. SMP0328. (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@SMP0328 Do you agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution policy to resolve this dispute? SaltyBoatr 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The "dispute" is that one person (Salty) does not want the all-important findings the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court case covered in the article, and is using every trick in the book and mis-using every policy that he can to try prevent the Supreme Court findings from being covered. This is very disruptive. North8000 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000 at least, for acknowledging that there is a dispute. Do you agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution policy to resolve this dispute? SaltyBoatr 15:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will agree to DR on one condition: you must be willing to compromise. If each editor involved in DR gives a little, we should quickly reached a consensus. What is not acceptable is for one editor to go into DR believing that the other editors are suppose to completely agree with him. If you are willing to allow for article content with which you do not agree, I will be willing to respond in kind. Do you agree to my condition? SMP0328. (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As long as you agree to follow the policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It is beyond our control that some aspects of those policies are non-negotiable, but in the case of everything else, I agree to be willing to compromise. SaltyBoatr 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Workspace for discussed new section on Supreme Court Determinations

Other details of these cases are covered elsewhere, and "impact" (on court cases, on existing laws etc.) would be covered). Please feel free to edit the draft, anything you put in there may get edited. Put discussion after the workspace / editable area. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - Beginning of Workspace / Editable Area (so that includes the title) - - - - - - - -

US Supreme Court Determinations

US Supreme Court has made six rulings regarding the Second Amendment, with the two most recent being in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller and June 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago), their first since 1939.

Workspace for discussed new section on Supreme Court Determinations

Other details of these cases are covered elsewhere, and "impact" (on court cases, on existing laws etc.) would be covered). Please feel free to edit the draft, anything you put in there may get edited. Put discussion after the workspace / editable area. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - Beginning of Workspace / Editable Area (so that includes the title) - - - - - - - -

US Supreme Court Determinations

The US Supreme Court made significant rulings on the Second Amendment in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and June 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago), their first since 1939

District of Columbia v. Heller

According to the Cornell School of law summary, and the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions, in this decision the Supreme Court Held:

(1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

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

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar.

McDonald v. Chicago

Ruled the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority. Remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition.

Pre-Heller Supreme Court RUlings

The most recent Second Amendment related Supreme Court ruling prior to the Heller decision was United States v. Miller in 1939. Prior to that were United States v. Cruikshank in 1876 and Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

References

1. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html | Cornell School of Law Summary of the Heller Decision
2. ^ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf | Syllabus of Heller Decision prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions
3. http://www.witkin.com/pages/recent_dev_pages/current_pages/conlaw_heller.htm%7C Witkin Legal Institute Summary of the Heller Decision
4. http://mooredefenselaw.com/2008/06/a-quick-summary-on-district-of-columbia-v-heller/%7C Nathan Moore Summary of the Heller Decision
5. http://www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=207840%7C Global Legal Information Network Summary of the Heller Decision
6. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm |OLR Research Institute's Summary of the Heller Decision
7. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290 |Oyez Summary of the Heller Decision
8. http://www.lcav.org/pdf/dc_v_heller_analysis.pdf |"Legal Community Against Violence" Summary of the Heller Decision

Analysis of Supreme Court Rulings

District of Columbia v. Heller

Immediate reaction after the Heller ruling was varied, with many sources giving focus to the portions of the ruling that pertained to the fact that the ruling was the first in the history of the Supreme Court to read any individual right meaning as being protected by the Second Amendment. The majority opinion drafted by Justice Antonin Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision. The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings were not to limit the right to keep and bear arms solely for militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The Heller ruling pertained to an ordinance in the District of Columbia involving a handgun trigger-lock requirement which amounted to a total ban on handgun within the home for lawful self-defense, and the court ruled that this violate the Second Amendment . The reason being that this amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CornellHellerSummary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

- - - - - - End of Workspace / Editable Area - - - - - - - -

Discussions

Made some suggested edits, more to follow. SaltyBoatr 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Created analysis section for Salty's material, retained all of it there, restored deleted findings material. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between "findings" and "analysis"? What is the difference? SaltyBoatr 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Findings would be only the salient findings, rulings, holdings,"dicta", determinations of the Supreme Court, from the decision itself, based on the highest quality, most objective reliable summaries that do (only) that Analysis could be lots of things, including a place for items aren't in the decision section. ] (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (

How do we know what is "salient"? Salience, by its very nature, is a subjective thing. Answer please by pointing to specific wording in the WP:Policy, thanks. It seems we are taking a big risk of violating WP:NPOV policy by choosing one opinion about salience and calling it "findings", and then calling another opinion about salience mere "analysis". SaltyBoatr 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources that SUMMARIZE the DECISION ITSELF would be the best way to determine salient FINDINGS. Sorry for the caps but the emphasis is important. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are misusing the word "DECISION". The decision is the Ratio '''decide'''ndi, and you are instead pointing to discussion of Obiter dictum. What you are seeking to do is inherently subjective, and especially so in the immediate time frame of the court ruling, when any analysis of the dicta is by its very nature unavoidably speculative, attempting to predict the future. SaltyBoatr 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not, it is an analysis (past tense) of what the court determined HELD in this decision. You keep gutting this draft to try to continue to hide this. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are torturing the meaning of Ratio decidendi. Plainly the Cornell summary is interpreting which Obiter dictum they were speculated would be important. Let's be honest here, it seems clear now that you are selecting just one source from two years ago at the time of the ruling because it matches your personal point of view you want to advance. Let's be true to the policy, which requires us to read all the reliable sourcing, and not just the sourcing we like. Plainly, more modern sources show that the federal courts have chosen to give importance to other Obiter dictum in the ruling than what was predicted at the time of the ruling. We are to write an article that matches what we see in the sourcing, fairly without bias, and your tortured logic that somehow we need to give preference to the sourcing which matches your personal point of view is a serious policy violation. SaltyBoatr 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

These decisions are about the Supreme Court settling certain long standing questions, and leaving others yet to be decided. And no, I am not even using the term "Ratio decidendi" much less torturing the meaning of it. These decisions need to be covered, and as decision, and it is clear that you do not want them to be covered. That just happened to be the first summary that I found. I just found 6 more summaries (including one by an anti-gun rights group) that said that same thing, and added them as references, making this 7 summaries of Heller. No "selectivity" is needed, other than they are summarizing the findings vs. your novel theory that one can't report on an event, one can only report on somebody's opinion of the future impact of the event.

Make that 8 summaries, and one of them is per the summary prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions, who specifically said that those things were HELD by the court. Maybe you can go tell him that per the Salty "dicta" theory he is wrong too and that those things were not HELD by the Supreme Court. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't working out. You obviously don't want the decisions covered as such, and your "edits" to the draft consist of totally nuking it from doing so. I'm going to make one more attempt and then give up with this "draft in the user page" attempt as being a failure. North8000 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, I suggest that we follow the WP:Dispute Resolution policy. North8000: Do you agree to do this WP:DR to resolve our dispute? SaltyBoatr 17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, this material is still very much troublesome, and moving it into the article space is premature. SaltyBoatr 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

POV marking

Have marked the article/lede as POV, as the removal of cited content summarizing the current legal status of the Second Amendment established by the Supreme Court rulings and replacing cited content while making the case that the meaning of the Second Amendment is controversial, simply because an editor disagrees with the Supreme Court rulings, is extremely POV. This is an extremely offensive POV edit. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

With the restoration of the Supreme Court ruling content, the lede is no longer POV. Have removed the tag. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FOr the areas where such determinations have been authoritatively made (= by the US Supreme Court) , noting the legal meaning of the 2A is certainly material for the lead. When I hear someone calling that POV, a revision of the Colbert quote comes to mind: "Reality has a pro-2A rights bias"  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including the rulings. Placing them in the lead, however, biases the article toward recent events and is too detailed. Providing a bunch of legal interpretations in literally the third sentence is a turn-off to the reader. Our intro needs to draw readers in to the article. The goal of the lead is not to provide details on policy. As a compromise, let's split the lead into two paragraphs. We'll cover the basics in the first paragraph, and provide a nod to recent events in the second. If someone wants to try this out feel free. Otherwise I'll make an edit after dinner. Moving back and forth like this is just going to lead to full protection. Let's try a different approach. N419BH 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the rulings give the Second a long needed clarity and should be at the top. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another FP request by SaltyBoatr

Again SaltyBoatr has requested that this article be fully protected (a.k.a., locked). Please let your opinion on this latest FP request be known by leaving a comment at the request thread. SMP0328. (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Please observe WP:LEAD when setting up the lead paragraph. Extensive discussions of Supreme Court cases do not belong here. Instead, mentioning the amendment is controversial draws readers into the article and encourages them to read more by asking "why is this controversial". Discussing the cases in the lead causes a perception of POV toward recent events. I strongly encourage people to instead expand the sections on Supreme Court cases already in the article. N419BH 23:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court rulings on a part of the Constitution can be a legitimate place for the Introduction to that part of the Constitution. Also, your inclusion of the amendment being "controversial" can be viewed as POV and saying the Supreme Court has "frequently" ruled on the amendment is just plain incorrect. SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(partially repeated from other section) IMHO for the areas where such determinations have been authoritatively made (= by the US Supreme Court) , noting the legal meaning of the 2A is certainly material for the lead. And it's hard to imagine it staying in without it clearly being something said by the court and noted as such. When I hear someone calling that POV, a revision of the Colbert quote comes to mind: "Reality has a pro-2A rights bias"  :-) But certainly we need to also cover this more fully in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD calls it the lead section--not the lead paragraph. And quoting from WP:LEAD:

I think based on this, the brief summarization of Supreme Court cases (including Heller and McDonald) should be included.

I don't mean to sound snippy, N419BH, and I appreciate you contributing to the article and discussion, but I think the lead was better before your changes. --Hamitr (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We could pretty easily go back to the version of the introduction which was stable and consensus for nearly a year. This present post-McDonald pro-gun edit war POV pushing is contrary to WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about briefly summarize it by cutting the legal jargon. "Recent Supreme Court decisions have found several state laws limiting gun ownership to be unconstitutional per the Second Amendment." This summarizes, and leaves the detailed discussion to the article itself. As is, the two cases are covered more in the introduction than in the body. This is not good from a readability standpoint. N419BH 00:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is more on Heller and McDonald in the Introduction than in the body of the article, then more on those cases should be added to the body rather than removing reference to those cases from the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body of the article, covering each main point concisely. The single sentence that N419BH suggests seems too broad and does not provide an adequate summary that can stand alone without the body. Also, I reverted an edit by N419BH that introduced the word "controversy". While I don't disagree, such a sentence amounts to interpretation of the meaning of the rest of the article, rather than summarizing the rest of the article, and as such amounts to original research. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The real solid answer would be to rationally decid on and build the key sections, and then summarize them in the lead. This will take a lot of rational work, because much of the article is in a mess and badly outdated. The problem is that Salty has made such a frantic mess out of this that such has become impossible. Blink once and he has massive changes towards his POV. In my draft on the talk page to try to cover supreme courts findings he has basically completely gutted it each time he "edited" it. Trying to hide Supreme court findings from getting covered is very much out of line and clearly wrong. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's no surprise Heller and McDonald will be in the lead: they're recent and they're also two important decisions, directly on point, and for the first time in 80 years (with very little before them). In fact, it's quite reasonable to say that this line of cases are the most important Second Amendment cases, and they're obviously the most recent. So I'd expect some change after the decision and reverting back to a pre-decision version is not an option. How to deal with it, however, is, and I think that working on the sections and in a perfect article the lead is really just one-sentence summaries of each section. Shadowjams (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Be real. No one here is suggesting that we revert back to a pre-decision version. The significant ruling establishing an individual right component was Heller in 2008. The article received a MAJOR rewrite in the wake of that ruling. The post-Heller consensus introduction text that resulted was stable with very minor changes for nearly 12 months during 2009 and 2010. SaltyBoatr 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted the lead by splitting it into three paragraphs. I think this reads better. I've reworded some sections for clarity but I do not believe I have deleted any information. N419BH 01:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed all of the above, but I share the above concerns with Salty's removal of some of the recent additions, including this change. It seems adequate to add the ABA style with a source, and leave the other statement, which is certainly relevant and pertinent, and unlike some of the earlier debates, is not original research. I've stood up for Salty's enforcement of WP:OR and requiring cites before, but I believe that diff goes too far and I tend to agree with some of the comments above in this thread. Shadowjams (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The big trouble with putting the "on the basis of both text and history" quote into the introduction is that it violates WP:SYN to advance just one of the POV's seen. That quote comes from the non-binding dicta of the ruling. It carries no special weight, other than if the federal courts give it weight, and this hasn't happened. Why should editor here chose some dicta and not other dicta? The answer is that editors here are seeking to push a political agenda. What we should be doing instead is reading the secondary sourcing, such as this UCLA Law Review article that has analyzed which dicta in that ruling have actually been deemed to be important by the courts. Let's stick with what we read in the sourcing and not use the article to make WP:BATTLE. SaltyBoatr 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ABA was rejected last night as being "out of date". Perhaps we can find a newer source? One that was created after the Supreme Court rulings? N419BH 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Who say the ABA statement is out of date? It seems that the assertion that the disagreement was settled by a 5-4 ruling of the SCOTUS is the issue that needs to be sourced now. Claiming that the 2A is a settled matter is incredulous, witness for instance the very large flurry of lower court cases that have ensued. If the matter was settled, why so many post-Heller lower court cases? Not to mention the prediction of hundreds of court cases which are anticipated in the wake of McDonald, the dust is still settling on this, obviously. SaltyBoatr 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This intro sentence is a NPOV problem: "Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right." Four problems, the "confirmed" is a POV push, because 1) it is an open question whether the individual component of the right was first established in 2008, or confirmed in 2008. 2) The issue of whether the 2A protects an individual component in addition to, or instead of the militia component is another open question. 3) The sourcing is pretty clear that the actual right being protected as confirmed in the courts is effectively just an individual right for lawful self defense within the home, and the ambiguous sweeping of all the other potential "individual rights" is a political push which is not NPOV and 4) the footnote is a NPOV bias, "new liberal justices threaten Second Amendment rights", in the intro?!?, really? Lets be more neutral please. Stop using this article space to WP:BATTLE please. Also, can we work out a consensus on the intro and stop the edit war over the intro in the article space? The small group of editors that continue to make edit war in the article space while avoiding the use of the talk page are a problem here. SaltyBoatr 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD instead of POV tagging the article, why don't you find a better source. I agree the current three need replacement, and I've already suggested that to the editor who added them. I've been searching MSNBC but haven't met with much success. N419BH 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried WP:BOLD and when faced with edit war tactics, that doesn't work. The POV tag is warranted until we find a consensus. SaltyBoatr 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead was stable for the past 12 hours. I'm saying be bold and fix the source. I'm trying to right now, I just can't find an article from a major news organization that confirms what the sentence says. N419BH 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the NPOV policy. Finding one source to confirm one POV isn't sufficient. We must craft some wording that fairly represents without bias all the significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing. The trouble here at this politically sensitive article, (especially in the wake of major court rulings like now), is that a flurry of politically motivated editors show up and want this article to match their personal POV. That is against policy. The article should match the balance of the sourcing, not the balance of the edit war pushing of the editors. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No I understand it. I'm saying instead of going "that's POV, (click delete button)" source the current POV statement and create and source the opposite viewpoint. For example, "Recent Supreme Court decisions have clarified what the Second Amendment freedoms are, though unanswered questions remain and controversy continues." Actually, I'll add that and see what happens once I have a source for it. N419BH 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just taking one narrow item to illustrate a point, SCOTUS has clearly ruled that "militia" is not a condition on whatever 2A rights are otherwise available, and SCOTUS defines the reality with respect to US law. I can see an alternative opinion of "they shouldn't have done that", but an opinion of "they didn't do that" falls under the "flat earth" category in wp:npov which says it probably shouldn't even be in the article much less the lead. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 Cite your sources please. Actually the SCOTUS has not clearly ruled on 'whatever 2A rights'. It would be helpful if you could refer to reliable sourcing here. Point of fact, in excess of 200 court cases have already been heard sorting out "whatever 2A rights" are protected, (and we can see a trend developing now), though many more cases are in the queue to be heard in the coming months and years. You cannot ignore that Heller created an unsettled condition which is presently being sorted out in the courts. McDonald is similar. It is unanimous in the sourcing that both these cases created more uncertainty about "whatever 2A rights" are to be protected, and a very large number of court cases will needed to be settled before we know "clearly" what has happened. The dust is still settling. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't you understand that that is a completely different topic! Whatever the rights have shaken or shake out to be in the future, the discussed portion of the 2008 ruling says that those rights are not conditional on being in a militia.

I've removed the two blog sources and one possibly unreliable source. I've reworded the opening sentence into a more neutral POV sentence. I've added a quote from an AP and Reuters written article (sourced to MSNBC) that speaks to continued questions regarding the amendment. I believe this is more neutral. N419BH 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not real fond of that last sentence in the lead. I don't like the "MSNBC stated..." part--especially in the lead. It would be nice if we could find a better source so that we didn't have to include "<SOURCE> stated" at all. And I also think it would be better to find a source and/or quote that specifically references the Second Amendment rather than "gun control laws." --Hamitr (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Miguel Escopeta removed that sentence, so I guess it's a moot point unless someone really wants to put it back in the lead. --Hamitr (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That should be reverted. We need a statement regarding continued questions and controversy, and it needs to be sourced. Otherwise the lead seems to indicate all questions are answered, which by no means are they. N419BH 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still missing the "militia not a condition" part, but I'm more focused on getting that section built (which we could draw on to summarize the lead) than entering the fray on lead wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is no different than attempting to put a claim by the NRA in the lede to summarize the article. It would not be appropriate, either. A neutral statement with a non-POV citation would be OK, something along the lines that controversy continues regarding the impact of the recent Supreme Court rulings. But, neither an "The NRA stated" or "MSNBC stated" quote is appropriate here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Having seen battles over the introduction at this article in the past, what has worked in the past is to keep the introduction simple and ambiguously worded, giving a 'plain vanilla' summary of the article. Trying to insert "POV #1 says this and POV #2 says that" always to cause NPOV imbalance grief. By the way, I see very little (essentially zero) published in reliable sourcing about much tangible "impact of the recent Supreme Court rulings". What are you reading that says there has been much impact? What we do see published in reliable sourcing is that there has been (as a result of Heller) hundreds of court rulings that have affirmed the Constitutionality of existing gun control laws. Objectively, per reliable sourcing, (if anything) what we are seeing to be the actual impact of Heller is the affirmation of nearly every gun control law. SaltyBoatr 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to get into whether or not to put it into the lead, but, just for the discussion page, pre-McDonald is no indicator of the impact of Heller in the courts. The biggest impacts of Heller so far is that everybody with outright handgun bans has now dropped them, (most of them except Chicago immediately, and Chicago just after McDonald) and also that Heller caused McDonald to happen. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone again. I will say again, we cannot discuss the supreme court cases without also giving a nod to continued questions. N419BH 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The POV neutrality problems with the introduction continues. The issue is that we must fairly represent all significant points of view. The problem point is the claim that individual rights beyond self protection within the home are protected. This assertion is not confirmed in any reliable sourcing. 200+ cases, zero examples of any 'individual rights' gun laws being overturned on 2A grounds other than the examples for lawful self-defense within the home. Obviously, we need to keep working this out on the talk page. Adding back the POV tag to give indication of this to article space. SaltyBoatr 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Individuals Bearing Arms

In The New World Order (Wells) (1940) H.G. Wells casually discussed a question raised by Lord David Davies why modern individuals saw less "need to bear arms" for security from assault and robbery. Individuals bearing arms for defense from assault and robbery was not a novel concept in 1940 or earlier. The novel concept is the modern meme that "bearing arms" is exclusively military, a late 20th century construct rewriting history to justify gun control.

As far as the individul keeping and bearing arms for militia purposes, the exemplar clause of the Second Amendment, one can look to the reasons and arguments for the foundings of the National Rifle Associations of Britain (1859) and of America (1870) and the early 20th century establishment of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (Civilian Marksmanship Program) shortly after the state militias were federalized as the National Guard, especially the U.S. Code of Law definition of "unorganized militia". Naaman Brown (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The state militias were not federalized. They were ignored and no effort made to either train them or equip them. The National Guard is a "select militia" and is not the general militia.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And when individuals tried to keep the general militia tradition alive they were hounded in the courts. Read Presser v. Illinois as an example of that hounding.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of New Supreme Court Determinations Section

I put in the new section with the Supreme Court determinations, and the "Analysis" section for non-finding material written by Salty to keep the determinations from being occluded. Salty reverted it; of course we have clearly seen he does not want the Supreme Court Determinaitons to be covered. These are as above in the "editable" section.

What does everybody else think? North8000 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All this petty WP:BATTLE is diverting our attention from genuine substantive issues that are currently developing about the 2A, such as the Circuit Court split and the en banc hearing on U.S. v. Skoien. If only we could stop fighting old political fights here and simply read the sourcing and write an encyclopedia. Sigh. SaltyBoatr 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your presumption that the other editors have not read the source is in poor taste. Many of us have done extensive reading. We simply don't agree with your assertions about proper handling of the material - this doesn't mean we haven't read it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you then please couch your discussion here by specifically describing what you have read? It would be more constructive, thanks. SaltyBoatr 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Like yourself I've read a huge number of books over the years on this topic. I don't see a need to make another bibliography here - Whenever I find a new source if it has anything new I add it to the bibliography as I do with other topics as well. My point is that you constantly accuse people of disagreeing with you because they're not reading the sources. It's possible for people to read those sources and still disagree with you. This is the basic issue you have with people when editing - you seem to believe that your interpretation is the only correct view of things, and therefore anything else is POV. We need to recognize that two people can read the same source/source(s) and take away something different. Give the other editors here a little credit and look at their statements, rather than constantly accusing people of not reading the source. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to cover an important topic in one section is not "diverting attention" away from a completely different topic. WIkipedia articles have more than one section, and more than one topic within them. One does not "divert" from the other. Does anybody except Salty object to the new section going in soon? North8000 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The material is heavily and reliably sourced. Please review the citations. 99% of it is verbatium from The Cornell School of Law Summmary and the summary by the Reporter or Decisions of the Supreme Court. And it's not selective; their summaries coincide and are fully in there. And then I gave 6 ADDITIONAL sources (one of them an anti-gun organizaiton) which say virtually the same thing. More of Salty's trying to blockade this article.North8000 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question as to why we should be focusing on things written two years ago, immediately after the court ruling? And, why you are ignoring the sources written recently? It seems that the recent information should be given weight. SaltyBoatr 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they are two different subjects!! One is the court ruling, the other is events elsewhere! North8000 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why then give attention to the subject that favors your personal POV, and to downplay the subject that doesn't? Per policy here we are to read all the reliable sources and fairly cover all significant POV's seen. SaltyBoatr 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that you are saying something that ludicrous. This is about covering Supreme Court determinations. It's not about "downplaying" a different subject. I'm not even involved with that different subject. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For instance, based on what I have been reading, the most significant thing missing from Heller was the standard of review that the courts should be using to establish whether Law "A" violates the 2A and Law "B" does not. This has HUGE implication whether or not "individual rights" matter. This HUGE issue actually has received plenty of coverage in sourcing, and it is being downplayed in favor of other so-called determinations that are more symbolic. SaltyBoatr 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The 200

If we're going to include the quote about the "200+ cases" tried in this article we need to be careful how we use it. It's from a blog and isn't indicitive of a scientific study. I'm not saying blogs cannot be used, but we don't want to give the impression that somehow the 200+ cases mentioned in the blog has some significant meaning. Some have tried to use the statement to "prove" that the Heller case was inconsequential, but this certainly proves no such thing. For example it doesn't discuss the fact the Supreme cases frequently take more than the 2 years cited to grind their way through the system (didn't Heller run about 5 years?). It also skips over all of the self-imposed legislation changes made because of cities/states/counties trying not to run afoul of the constitution. So this is obviously a biased piece intended to prove the authors point and should be used as such, rather than as a proof as the author contends. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. SCOTUSblog is a considered a high quality source. If in doubt, lets check at the RS noticeboard. SaltyBoatr 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate from sentence 3 above where I specifically state that it CAN be used. My concern is how it's being used. Somehow a blog opinion is being used as if it's an academic study to prove a point, rather than as anecdotal information to support an opinion. We don't want to give readers the wrong impression. Everytime I see it used, it's position as if it's an authoritative study, which the blog doesn't even imply. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Heller didn't even take effect on state and local law court cases until July 2010, how can any source that claims that pre-McDonald court cases are an indicator of the effect of Heller be considered reliable? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly, it's a demonstrably misleading opinion. It's "accurate" but incomplete. Use with caution. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Demonstrably?" Really, where did you read that? Or, is it your opinion, unencumbered by reading any sources. When I read sources I see that the 200+ cases are extremely relevant because they are establishing the all vital Standard of review which was missing from Heller. Editor's here are bent on fighting ideological fights, when what we are failing to do is to give coverage to genuine issues relevant to the 2A. The Standard of review to be used by the courts in this post-Heller era could hardly be more significant, yet we are distracted with WP:BATTLE. This petty ideological infighting should stop, it gets in the way of actually writing an article based on WP:V. Let's add a section in the article discussing the 'standard of review' used in the courts regarding 2A law. Agreed? SaltyBoatr 20:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, demonstrably. See the reasons in paragraph 1. If those reasons aren't obvious to you, then I'll be happy to clarify, otherwise I'll categorize this as "asked and answered". This isn't ideological infighting. It's an attempt to make a decent article. If I see someone misusing an opinion piece as an academic fact, I always bring it up, regardless of article topic. As someone who works to combat systemic bias the bias inherent in the blog article should be obvious to you based on the points above - IE the dreaded "selection bias". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your paragraph #1 seem entirely to be your personal opinion. Please rephrase "demonstrably" by pointing to specific secondary sourcing. The importance of these 200+ cases has been cited to WP:RS, please phrase your rebuttal by also using WP:RS. Thanks. (Also, please address the issues raised by US v. Skoien.) (And, please address the issue of Standard of review.)SaltyBoatr 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer to Hamitr - RS is not required when discussing on talk page. In particular, you don't use an RS to talk about an RS. If so, I'd be asking you for the RS that says that your article is RS, and I'd be asking you for RS that the quote you're using in being used in the proper way, etc. Please avoid the soup. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, you've been told before that WP:RS applies to article space--not talk space. Please stop harping about reliable sources to support editors' comments on the discussion page. If it goes in the article, then it has to meet WP:RS--but not here.--Hamitr (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. This talk page is not a forum for general discussion of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Discussion of personal opinions serves to distract from the work of improving the article. SaltyBoatr 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I never said that it was a forum for general discussion! I said that WP:RS doesn't apply to editors' talk page comments regarding the article! --Hamitr (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a sourced statement to continued controversy and questions. Salty overdid it with the 200, but I would like my previous sentence with two sources (an AP news article and a paper by a law professor) to be reconsidered. N419BH 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if people here were to acknowledge the extreme importance of the Standard of review applicable to Heller (and McDonald), I think editors might agree with Professor Winkler in that UCLA Law Review article. The standard of review is the single most important issue regarding the determination in the courts of 'individual rights' gun law which may, or may not, be protected. Looking at the 200+ post-Heller court rulings is what this sourcing has done to evaluate the standard of review being used by the courts. The US v. Skoien case was vital to this, and Skoien is being mentioned as the "next" case that could be given cert and to be heard by the SCOTUS on appeal regarding the 2A. SaltyBoatr 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What part(s) of the Volokh paper supported that sentence? I honestly couldn't find anything supporting it, but perhaps I missed it somewhere. Also, that paper is from 1998, so I don't see how it applies to "ongoing legal challenges," etc.

And the single sentence from the MSNBC article:

doesn't appear to support the statements, either. I'm not necessarily opposed to a statement about "continued controversy and questions," but I don't think that one was very good, and it wasn't worth keeping it considering the "countering statements." --Hamitr (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, that quote is exactly what is needed to speak to the continued debate regarding the amendment. We don't want to express a particular POV, we simply need to state the amendment is controversial. Quoting a 5-4 decision speaks to the controversy, the "casting doubt on handgun bans" speaks to a 30 year old law which has for all practical intents and purposes been ruled unconstitutional (an additional statement to the controversy), and the remaining statement sources the current article's unsourced sentence regarding the constitutionality of some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. N419BH 22:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Heller and McDonald in not POV71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ratification debates

Added text to fill a hole on the ratification debates in the article. The text I added is taken directly from a court case, so please no blather about POV, and OR.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

SMP0328 - Heller syllabi

The Heller Syllabi is taken directly from justia.com, the US Supreme Court's own website, and is the US Supreme Court's approved summary of the case. It is therefore from a "reliable source" and IMO can be used to cite material in the article. Please advise why you believe the Supreme Courts own summary of the case cannot be used in cites to support article material. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Case Study of Blockade of this Article - Its Time To Take a Stand

So, for weeks we have been talking about getting coverage of the Supreme Court determinations into the article, this central material currently having undercovered and lost in the article. Most of this focuses on Heller, a small amount on McDonald, and brief acknowledgment and internal links to the 1939-and-older SCOTUS determinations. The following gauntlet of what I've gone through so far is emblematic of Salty's methods of blockading this article . (To avoid taking 3 hours to write this, this all paraphrased from memory):

1. Phase 1 of Blockade: Anticipating Salty's usual "blockade plan A" which is essentially that one must provide sourcing to even talk about something on the talk page or else it's "not legit", I found an excellent, succinct summary put up by the Cornell School of Law. I put it up as a "Supreme Court Determinations" draft section in the talk page.
2. Phase 2 of blockade. Salty again gave me his "nearly everything SCOTUS said is dicta and doesn't count" theory and said that those points were "dicta" & I was wrong to say that those points were "held". I pointed out that that term "held" and the items that it referred to were verbatim from Cornell's summary, and said that maybe he should go re-educate Cornell.
3. Phase 3 of Blockade He pointed out the disclaimer on Cornell's page and said "are we to ignore that?". I pointed out that the disclaimer basically said the "this is not the decision itself" and said no, we should not ignore it, we should just ignore Salty's attempted mis-use of it.
4. Phase 4 of Blockade So the, under the guise of "editing" the draft, he completely nuked it. Basically deleted everything I put in (from Cornell) and substituted "discussions about the ruling" material. I gracefully called what he wrote "Analysis" and created a new so-named section for it and restored the "determinations" section in the draft.
5. Phase 5 of Blockade So the he challenged me saying "who's to decide what goes into the summary of the decision" implying that I was cherrypicking. I answered "summary of the decision by reliable sources should decide, as long as it's a summary of the decision itself"
6. Phase 6 of Blockade So then he nuked it again. He completely replaced the "determinations" summary with his material, and relabeled the Cornell Summary of the Decision to the effect of being a study group's projections about what might be important about the Heller decision in the future. With further explanation I reverted the draft again into a "determinations" section, and an "analysis" section which retained 100% of Salty's material.
7. Phase 7 of Blockade. So then he accused me of "source shopping" and just picking one POV source (The Cornell School of Law) with a POV my way. So then I went looking for more sourcing. During the hunt I discovered that Cornell's summary was virtually identical with the summary prepared by the official Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court. So I was able to double reference every point in the summary (them and Cornell School of Law). I went and found and cited summaries by 6 more sources (one of them an anti-gun group) who said the same or similar thing.
8. Phase 8 of Blockade. So I moved the material to the article space...my "determinations" section, and Salty's material as the "analysis" section. He reverted it saying I prematurely moved in a "huge hunk of POV material". This "huge hunk of POV material" was 2/3 verbatim from the Cornell School of Law / Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court and 1/3 verbatim written by Salty.
9. Phase 9 of Blockade In the ensuing discussion, now he is basically saying "why am I writing about this subject instead of different subjects such as the impacts of the Heller decision" and implied that such "de-emphasis" of the other subjects was POV. I said that that is ludicrous, I'm writing about THIS subject and have nothing to do with the other subjects.

The is emblematic of Salty's blockading of this article. Including using Wikipedian-sounding talk to further a very un-Wikipedian goal of blockading this article to POV it. This is important material that needs to be in the article. We have to take a stand somewhere against this type of activity. This is rock solid summary of the determinations of the Heller decision (plus a brief note on the McDonald one and quick mention of previous ones) with rock solid and extensive referencing. Again, this is important material to be in the article. Nobody is opposing it except Salty; nobody else is even saying "change it", although, of course it can be changed in the article space. I'm going to put it back in, my "determinations" section, and Salty's material under an "Analysis" section. I think it's good to have an "Analysis" section so that the "determinations" section can stayed focused on determinations. (This will create some small overlaps, the resolution of which will update the article.) I hope that y'all will support me if you see fit. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA The vast majority of what North8000 is characterizing as "blockade" involves attempts at discussion on the talk page, met with stonewalling. I too have found this frustrating. My attempts to keep this discussion focused on the WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; and the article frustrating, are met again and again with personal attack. This comes with the territory, I guess, when editing articles that involve strong personal opinions about politics. Objectively, North8000 has just inserted 10% of new text into the article in a single edit, this is pretty drastic. Could you at least move it to the Judicial interpretation section? Now we have redundancy, with Heller being covered in two places.

The core problem I see here is that the POV balance point is now being set by the weight of opinion of the involved editors. Contrary to policy, which requires that the POV balance point to be set by the balance seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm writing here is to give an honest "gut feel", not to respond to, participate in, score points in or start a debate. If you knew me, you'd know that I feel the obligation to fulfil whatever hat/role I'm in at the moment properly. Here it is to work towards an accurate, informative, properly balanced article. WP rules, sourcing etc. is a means to that end, and any personal viewpoints are secondary to that. The 2A is a legal instrument, and one of the most important things to clearly cover is it's meaning in each area and to say whether or not the meaning is clear, disputable etc. (Only) in those areas where the Supreme Court has weighed in, it creates the legally binding definitions of the 2A. Aside from the rulings on the particular local laws, Heller weighed in in several different areas, and McDonald weighed in on one. One of my few strengths is being a logician when reading or writing things. I can understand that, for example, that Heller made an important determination on one piece of the puzzle, that militia is not a condition for any 2A right, while it only weighed in on little pieces of exactly what those right are and aren't. These "pieces" are exceedingly important in the article, and need to be covered in an unocluded way. Currently the "judicial interpretations" section doubly occludes these determinations. First, the Supreme Court cases are in a "sea" of lower court cases, and second, the determinations are only 10% covered, and that coverage is buried is a sea of other info. The new section is designed to cover the SCOTUS interpretations where they exist. Since there's not much in the 1939 and older interpretations, I would have left those out except that you "see also'd" them and I just accomodated that in deference to you.

Right now, (only) in those specific areas (maybe 10% of the article) where SCOTUS has weighed in, coverage of reality will look a little good for folks who want to emphasized firearm rights and a little rough for folks who think the opposite. (Only) in those specific areas, claiming POV by covering the reality is like someone from the flat earth society claiming that a photo of the round earth from space is POV. The article can cover opinions about the other 90%, or cover opinions that SCOUTUS shouldn't have done what they did, but it need not cover flat earth viewpoints that they didn't do what they did.

I think that SC findings on 2A meaning (in those areas where such exists) need to be covered in an unoccluded manner and as such. Short term dumping this into the judicial section would doom it. Also structurally that would be a problem because the material in the judicial section is more far-ranging. Longer term I think some major reorganizing would help, if we could work together following the mission of simply a good article. Right now it's a hodge podge. For example, there is a top level section defined by "Scholarly" which to me looks looks like a POV invitation, but more importantly not a good way to organize article material. I don't have a total answer regarding organization, but I do know that we could work it out, and that the current one isn't it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Let's try again: You assert, "Heller made an important determination." Is this a "WP:Truth"? Or, is this subject to differing points of view seen in reliable sourcing? When I check the sourcing I see that most of the experts say that what Heller did was open up a question that needed to be resolved in the lower courts. In fact, the lower courts have been very busy these last two years. And also, as a matter of fact, objectively, those people who favor broad gun control legislation have been very happy with the results so far because (again per reliable sourcing) the courts have interpreted the "presumptively lawful" dicta in Heller without exception to affirm the constitutionality of virtually all gun control laws. Your focus on non-consequential dicta in Heller serves to divert the eyes away from the extremely pertinent events that have unfolded these last two years regarding court interpretation of the standard of review to be applied to challenges to individual gun right laws. After the recent en banc ruling 10-1 in the Seventh Circuit regarding the Skoien case, the dust is now very much settled on the question of which types of individual gun rights are protected by the 2A. We should be providing the service to the readers here by covering the developments in the courts regarding the question of which 'individual rights' are protected and which are not. Your 10% increase the the size of the article covering symbolic 'determinations' only dilutes coverage of substantial 2A developments in 2009 and 2010 about information actually affecting individual gun rights. SaltyBoatr 15:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is heavily sourced and widely acknowledged that Heller made important determinations. Also see next paragraph.

Those are different important topics. Heller made important determinations is some areas ("Topic A") and left others open (separate "topic B"). Again, those are different important topics. You are basically saying that lower court rulings on "Topic B" should prevent coverage of Supreme Court rulings on "Topic A". That tactic is covered under "Phase 9 of Blockade" above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop the personal attacks? SaltyBoatr 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been criticizing what you have been doing to this article, not attacking you. Calling something that is not a personal attack a "personal attack" IS a personal attack. So please stop. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, discuss the article, not the editor. SaltyBoatr 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Two of the URL's you claim that support your "important determinations" claim are dead links. Looking at the others I don't see it supported that they say this is an "important determination". Could you point exactly to where you have WP:V your "important determination" claim? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You just changed what I said about those 6/8 sources. Those were two of the 8 which I said have summaries of what SCOTUS held in the Heller Decision. Two summaries (Cornell School of Law and Reporter of Decision of the Supreme Court) were the main ones used and were used as a reference line by line of what I put in there. And I said that the other 6 (two of which you are referring to) had similar summaries. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: Could you point exactly to where you have WP:V your "important determination" claim? Thanks. Or, for that matter, where is the word "determination" used? SaltyBoatr 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The summaries say that the court HELD those items; determination is just a more general word for the section heading. I also fixed those links.....it was a just a syntax problem (missing a space) North8000 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially interesting source - "the most dramatic and important Supreme Court case of the 21st century so far..." and other such. If you want an RS that talks about the case as being important. The opposing view to Winkler who says that it is not important. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And another source - right down the middle. Maybe the best. "The decision is unquestionably a constitutional landmark. But it's practical consequences should not be overstated. It is neither a Magna Carta for pro-gun enthusiasts nor a return to the Wild West feared by gun control proponents." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control On Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment (Kindle Edition ed.). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
2. Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 376. ISBN 978-0313365256. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• 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
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress things
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles